Great article. It makes sense that the Israelis would prioritize crew safety, given their small population. Funny how the old (tank warfare) seems new again.
In a way, we are rediscovering old truisms from early days of armored warfare.
The greatest asset of the German Panzer III and IV, I wondered, was that every crew member had a hatch that they could escape through very quickly, although two of the hatches, for the gunner and the loader, were on sides of the turret and they would have left the crew very vulnerable, for many reasons. The cramped interior, the tradition starting with interwar French and Russian tanks, made escape difficult, among other problems: crew survival rate in a T-34 that was wrecked in combat was very poor, as I understand. The Sherman had a belly hatch that was extremely appreciated by the crew, and I'd heard stories where it was used to evacuate wounded on the battlefield instead of the crew escaping. So there was a clear awareness that making escape easier was important even back then. I wonder why we downplayed that in the past decades?
One thing that occurs to me is that the emphasis on escape has to be accompanied by a recognition that a tank is ultimately disposable: that, if things get sticky, the crew should have little resistance to simply throwing it away. I wonder how ready armies around the world are to the idea of some soldiers throwing away sophisticated gear costing millions?
Tank personnel have one of the highest suicide rates as reported by redacted news. The tanks are radioactive and soldiers get turbo cancers from training and being deployed in them. A miserable death that destroys these men rapidly from the ground up. There's also the issue of depleted uranium from the bunker busting bombs. Are you familiar with this? Peace through Strength worked. But the strength part requires tanks, doesn't it? Is there an answer that protects the crew?
"On Saturday, the Russian army launched what may have been one of the largest-scale tank assaults of Russia’s 25-month wider war on Ukraine.
It ended in one of the largest-scale tank massacres of Russia’s 25-month wider war on Ukraine. When the smoke cleared, the Russians had left behind—on a road west of the ruins of Avdiivka in eastern Ukraine—a third of their tanks"
Stephen: My Dad was an engineer who spent most of his career in the defense industry, and he passed along his enthusiasm for military history (and a fascination with airplanes). That's probably why, when I became a newspaper journalist and financial writer, I kept finding my way back to the defense beat. I share that bit of background to really underscore how much I liked your piece. You combined the expert's point of view with plain-and-engaging language. It's a rare combination. The splashes of history added the perfect amount of context. The comments it spawned here are great ... I'm looking forward to more.
When something is almost indestructable they say it's build like a tank. That was before the Ukraine-Russia war. Now a 5 year old can blow up a tank by figure of speech. I predicted that a modern war between peers would be a stalemate because modern weapon systems are too good. We see this happening in Ukraine, with the difference that Ukraine is not evenly matched which give Russia a slow forward grind. But tanks are still needed in battle, it has great firepower and give soldiers a good survival chance. I still think large assaults are possible to overrun and overpower the enemy if you accept the losses. In WWII we had air raids with bombers and fighter jets up to thousand, and pilots knew many of them would get shot down. It's about quantity that can't be stopped. You have to accept the large losses, problem is that production is too low to replace equipment in such a war. We are far from WWII levels of production. Which is not possible with modern weapons, in WWII airplanes where a metal box with a gun or hatch, fast and cheap to produce, compare that with the F-35.
In battle I would prefer sitting in a tank for best survival rate, if there's fire surpression installed. When amunition blows up it's all over. AN escape hatch underneath might sound good first but if you hit mines I think you lack protection underneath.
I have no experience with tanks but one thing I would do is close the hatch when abondoning the tank. FPV drop one grenade and the tank is gone. Close the hatch!
Any news on Israels active defense system against anti-tank weapons? How does it perform in Gaza? I believe Russia has defense systems, Terminator I think, but I haven't seen it in action protecting from projectiles, or maybe against a FPV drone. If it can intercept a RPG shouldn't it be able to shoot down a FPV drone?
In Ukraine, cheap UAV's have severely compromised expensive manned ground vehicles, with valuable crew.
So what about UGVs?
I guess they have fewer issues with gravity, and can carry far greater payloads of weapons and fuel and other stuff than aerial systems.
And they can also just shut down and wait, for days if necessary.
Terrain is obviously a constraint.
But I guess the bottom line is the bottom line: the economics of conflict, the cost and return of different delivery systems for different levels of destruction?
Much training and experience makes an effective combat vehicle crew. That human capability deserves maximum protection, not only for their lives, but the knowledge base.
Another important advantage of the Merkava design is that it can be resupplied without leaving the firing line.
What has been amazing about the IDF operation in Gaza is how few tanks and APCs have been destroyed. There are loads of videos from both sides in Ukraine showing vehicles being destroyed with anti-tank missiles or drones. Very few of those in Gaza although the same Kornet anti-tank missiles are used by Hamas.
The most likely reason is the extensive deployment of active defense, like Trophy for Merkava tanks and Namer APCs and Iron Fist for Eitan APCs. The use of active defense should allow for much lighter tanks in the future and it's hard to believe the Merkava would have been designed at 70 tons had active defense been available in the 1970s.
"The best tank was the British Centurion because it was reliable and could withstand hits even by anti-tank weapons" and one should add, the Centurion was designed in England in the closing months of WW2. I can't think of any other worthy English-designed tank but the Centurion makes up for a lot and was used by both Israel and Jordan in the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
Steven, I believe we are approaching an uncrewed Ground combat vehicle renaissance with many lighter unmanned systems operating at the cost of one crewed tank. The ability to put a drone pilot in the “tank” will ensure a human in the kill chain for the near future. One pilots ability to operate many UGCVs will limit the impact of recruiting issues currently facing large standing militaries. Smaller ground combat drones can take advantage of hybrid drivetrains to run silent for short periods of time and sneak up on enemy forces.
Great article. It makes sense that the Israelis would prioritize crew safety, given their small population. Funny how the old (tank warfare) seems new again.
In a way, we are rediscovering old truisms from early days of armored warfare.
The greatest asset of the German Panzer III and IV, I wondered, was that every crew member had a hatch that they could escape through very quickly, although two of the hatches, for the gunner and the loader, were on sides of the turret and they would have left the crew very vulnerable, for many reasons. The cramped interior, the tradition starting with interwar French and Russian tanks, made escape difficult, among other problems: crew survival rate in a T-34 that was wrecked in combat was very poor, as I understand. The Sherman had a belly hatch that was extremely appreciated by the crew, and I'd heard stories where it was used to evacuate wounded on the battlefield instead of the crew escaping. So there was a clear awareness that making escape easier was important even back then. I wonder why we downplayed that in the past decades?
One thing that occurs to me is that the emphasis on escape has to be accompanied by a recognition that a tank is ultimately disposable: that, if things get sticky, the crew should have little resistance to simply throwing it away. I wonder how ready armies around the world are to the idea of some soldiers throwing away sophisticated gear costing millions?
Tank personnel have one of the highest suicide rates as reported by redacted news. The tanks are radioactive and soldiers get turbo cancers from training and being deployed in them. A miserable death that destroys these men rapidly from the ground up. There's also the issue of depleted uranium from the bunker busting bombs. Are you familiar with this? Peace through Strength worked. But the strength part requires tanks, doesn't it? Is there an answer that protects the crew?
Armour is needed, well... what if there is no crew in it?
Serious question, is the time of expensive crewed vehicles coming to an end?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/03/31/the-russian-army-just-launched-the-biggest-tank-assault-of-the-war/?sh=9703d7e6e67a
"On Saturday, the Russian army launched what may have been one of the largest-scale tank assaults of Russia’s 25-month wider war on Ukraine.
It ended in one of the largest-scale tank massacres of Russia’s 25-month wider war on Ukraine. When the smoke cleared, the Russians had left behind—on a road west of the ruins of Avdiivka in eastern Ukraine—a third of their tanks"
Stephen: My Dad was an engineer who spent most of his career in the defense industry, and he passed along his enthusiasm for military history (and a fascination with airplanes). That's probably why, when I became a newspaper journalist and financial writer, I kept finding my way back to the defense beat. I share that bit of background to really underscore how much I liked your piece. You combined the expert's point of view with plain-and-engaging language. It's a rare combination. The splashes of history added the perfect amount of context. The comments it spawned here are great ... I'm looking forward to more.
When something is almost indestructable they say it's build like a tank. That was before the Ukraine-Russia war. Now a 5 year old can blow up a tank by figure of speech. I predicted that a modern war between peers would be a stalemate because modern weapon systems are too good. We see this happening in Ukraine, with the difference that Ukraine is not evenly matched which give Russia a slow forward grind. But tanks are still needed in battle, it has great firepower and give soldiers a good survival chance. I still think large assaults are possible to overrun and overpower the enemy if you accept the losses. In WWII we had air raids with bombers and fighter jets up to thousand, and pilots knew many of them would get shot down. It's about quantity that can't be stopped. You have to accept the large losses, problem is that production is too low to replace equipment in such a war. We are far from WWII levels of production. Which is not possible with modern weapons, in WWII airplanes where a metal box with a gun or hatch, fast and cheap to produce, compare that with the F-35.
In battle I would prefer sitting in a tank for best survival rate, if there's fire surpression installed. When amunition blows up it's all over. AN escape hatch underneath might sound good first but if you hit mines I think you lack protection underneath.
I have no experience with tanks but one thing I would do is close the hatch when abondoning the tank. FPV drop one grenade and the tank is gone. Close the hatch!
Any news on Israels active defense system against anti-tank weapons? How does it perform in Gaza? I believe Russia has defense systems, Terminator I think, but I haven't seen it in action protecting from projectiles, or maybe against a FPV drone. If it can intercept a RPG shouldn't it be able to shoot down a FPV drone?
Interesting.. made me think.
In Ukraine, cheap UAV's have severely compromised expensive manned ground vehicles, with valuable crew.
So what about UGVs?
I guess they have fewer issues with gravity, and can carry far greater payloads of weapons and fuel and other stuff than aerial systems.
And they can also just shut down and wait, for days if necessary.
Terrain is obviously a constraint.
But I guess the bottom line is the bottom line: the economics of conflict, the cost and return of different delivery systems for different levels of destruction?
Much training and experience makes an effective combat vehicle crew. That human capability deserves maximum protection, not only for their lives, but the knowledge base.
Thanks for your work Stephen. I have shared a link to here on our Substack.
A Skeptic War Reports
https://askeptic.substack.com/
This is the report as it relates to cancer as a cause of military suicide: https://rumble.com/v4kanar-exposed-the-pentagon-is-lying-about-veteran-suicides-redacted-with-natali-a.html
Great article, many thanks!!
Another important advantage of the Merkava design is that it can be resupplied without leaving the firing line.
What has been amazing about the IDF operation in Gaza is how few tanks and APCs have been destroyed. There are loads of videos from both sides in Ukraine showing vehicles being destroyed with anti-tank missiles or drones. Very few of those in Gaza although the same Kornet anti-tank missiles are used by Hamas.
The most likely reason is the extensive deployment of active defense, like Trophy for Merkava tanks and Namer APCs and Iron Fist for Eitan APCs. The use of active defense should allow for much lighter tanks in the future and it's hard to believe the Merkava would have been designed at 70 tons had active defense been available in the 1970s.
"The best tank was the British Centurion because it was reliable and could withstand hits even by anti-tank weapons" and one should add, the Centurion was designed in England in the closing months of WW2. I can't think of any other worthy English-designed tank but the Centurion makes up for a lot and was used by both Israel and Jordan in the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
Steven, I believe we are approaching an uncrewed Ground combat vehicle renaissance with many lighter unmanned systems operating at the cost of one crewed tank. The ability to put a drone pilot in the “tank” will ensure a human in the kill chain for the near future. One pilots ability to operate many UGCVs will limit the impact of recruiting issues currently facing large standing militaries. Smaller ground combat drones can take advantage of hybrid drivetrains to run silent for short periods of time and sneak up on enemy forces.