[starman2003]

the Soviet tanks during the 1973 conflict had a technical edge on paper

Most Arab tanks were still T-55s with 100mm guns whereas the Israeli M-48/60s and Centurions had 105mm guns.

but incurred higher losses due to superior tactics and crew training on the part of the Israeli tankers.

To an extent yes, but most arab losses were incurred while attacking an enemy sitting and waiting for them, as at red ridge on the Golan and Hamadia in Sinai. Initial Syrian losses were very high because the IDF had the advantage of prepared defensive positions, with mines, obstacles and firing platforms.

The inability of the T-62 and T-55 to depress their cannon to the same degree as their opponents was a distinct flaw

I don't think that meant much since the highest losses were incurred facing an enemy on higher ground (or the same level).

In 1972 the Egyptian T-62 was rated as having had superior armor

\

[Typhoon]

^ Correct as far as I can gather, my comments were with respect to tanks of a comparable(ish) generation in the conflict; the T-62 and the M60A1 and were taken from an analysis conducted by the Israeli 162nd Armored Division as published by Nordeen & Isby.

[Jed1]

The chicken hawks running the governments should have to go one against one in a fight to the death..see how they like war then....this sure would save a lot of innocent civilian lives wouldn't it?

[DrSteveBrule]

-Much lighter thus less immediate protection.

+Has autoloader which means less crew to train and operate.

+Less metal in construction thus cheaper to make and faster to make

+Can use ERA to add defensive depth to thinner armor negating biggest disadvantage

+Gun is just as deadly

+Low profile, more power per tonne, much better suited for offensive maneuvers in uneven terrain.

+Lighter means less fuel, longer range. Thus not only cheaper to manufacture, but cheaper to operate over longer distances.

The autoloader is generally better from a combat standpoint, although proponents of American tank doctrine will argue that the 4th crewmember can assist in repairs and maintenance, thus making up for the reduced rate of fire in sustained conflicts and increased logistical needs.

ERA armored tank don't have the same degree of second hit protection when compared to Chobham/Depleted Uranium armored vehicles, but its questionable as to whether chobham/DU plates are durable enough to protect against a second sabot hit.

But yes, Russian tanks do tend to give a better price to performance ratio. The issue with the Abrams is that the potency of AT weapons has outpaced the effectiveness of armor, meaning that past a certain point, having that much armor attached to a vehicle is just extra weight because it contributes nothing to vehicle operability. Of course, there are perfectly good reasons for this, such as keeping your tank crews alive. The IDF built the Merkava with durability and crew survival in mind, especially since they would be grossly outnumbered in a conflict with any other Mideast nation. The US doesn't have this issue, but the high cost of training soldiers and a shift to a professional army limits manpower greatly.

A main battle tank is a huge investment and can be knocked out by a huge variety of cheaper solutions.

I have heard the term 'swarm tactics' thrown around a bit in recent years. The idea is old but I guess today it would mean lots of infantry and light vehicles but with heavy firewpower.

The day of the tank might be numbered.

Sure, ATGMs have become more potent, but so have the tanks. How about thermal imaging, smoke canisters and 30mph speeds? MBTs still have a place as a force multiplier, but by no means will they ever return to their old roles of mobile pillboxes and spearheads of assaults in WWII.

[starman2003]

^ Correct as far as I can gather, my comments were with respect to tanks of a comparable(ish) generation in the conflict; the T-62 and the M60A1

The T-62 did have a bigger (115mm) gun but I don't think it was superior to the 105mm guns of western tanks (although it seems everybody has copied its smoothbore/APFSDS since then). And it is true arab T-62s were bested by superior IDF tactics in '73. The real problem, though, was crummy strategic leadership. If Shazly had had his way, the 25th wouldn't have advanced right into a trap.

[Typhoon]

The T-62 did have a bigger (115mm) gun but I don't think it was superior to the 105mm guns of western tanks (although it seems everybody has copied its smoothbore/APFSDS since then). And it is true arab T-62s were bested by superior IDF tactics in '73. The real problem, though, was crummy strategic leadership. If Shazly had had his way, the 25th wouldn't have advanced right into a trap.

I certainly agree with respect to the leadership issue for the Arab armies.

Though I do think the T-62's 2A20 was generally a better gun than the L7, I think the problems for the 2A20 came from the integration of the gun into the tank (such as the shell cap ejection mechanism). If we considering the gun itself then the 2A20 seems to have superior properties and its legacy of the APFSDS remains to this day.

The autoloader is generally better from a combat standpoint, although proponents of American tank doctrine will argue that the 4th crewmember can assist in repairs and maintenance, thus making up for the reduced rate of fire in sustained conflicts and increased logistical needs.

The auto-loader has in my opinion been a real problem for Soviet tanks although I think the concept remains valid, the implementation of the idea has been the issue. Storing ammunition at the tanks center of mass has dogged the T-series with survivability problems, the Abrams survivability features (separation of men and ammunition) seems to have won the design battle. Additionally the two piece ammunition current Soviet auto-loaders require has imposed limits in round improvement by restricting the length of APFSDS rounds, another fundamental problem despite the greater potential of the 125 mm gun the Russians favor.

The loader designs of the Leclerc, Type 90 and Black Panther seem to be far better implementations and the supposed complete crew separation from the turret in Amarta suggests the Russians will try the more modern approach.

ERA armored tank don't have the same degree of second hit protection when compared to Chobham/Depleted Uranium armored vehicles, but its questionable as to whether chobham/DU plates are durable enough to protect against a second sabot hit.

Its a good question, today armor modules are designed to be readily replaced in the field (like Merkava for example) which suggests the first shot will degrade the armor protection to some extent at least.

The big problems for the ERA developers appears to be dealing with tandem rounds (pretty much that second hit survival issue you mention) and protection of light armored vehicles.

Sure, ATGMs have become more potent, but so have the tanks. How about thermal imaging, smoke canisters and 30mph speeds? MBTs still have a place as a force multiplier, but by no means will they ever return to their old roles of mobile pillboxes and spearheads of assaults in WWII.

Its amazing how durable the tank has been in the face of the threat posed by precision guided weapons, it looks like they will continue to try to meet the threat as reportedly Amarta the latest Russian design will incorporate an active protection system called Afghani from the outset to destroy incoming rounds before they even reach the armor. Interesting times ahead!