History and military technology: September 2022

Thursday 22 September 2022

Interview with a former M-84 commander

A former M-84 commander kindly accepted an interview for the blog. M. trained as a commander and served as a platoon leader in M-84 tank unit, spending 4 years of his career. He also trained conscripts in the use of this tank, which was considered one of the most advanced versions of the T-72. When evaluated in the Soviet Union, the FCS was judged to be comparable to that of T-80U, which was by then the most modern tank.

1. Hello M., many thanks for accepting an interview for alejandro-8en.blogspot.com. Could you provide us a brief introduction to your career in the Armed Forces of Serbia?

Hello. Thank you for this interview. I graduated Military Academy in Belgrade, specialized in Armour Units. After graduation I have been posted as a platoon leader in M-84 tank unit and later, after the dissolution of my first unit I was transferred to BVM M-80 Mechanized infantry. Overall I have spent 4 years in M-84 units and 5 years in BVP M-80 units. After that I went to be operations officer, but that’s not important for this interview

2. What do you think were the strong and weak points of the M-84 tanks?

This is a bit difficult to explain in today’s point of view. M-84 is generally a very reliable tank, pretty easy to operate and maintain. If there is something I would like to point out as a good side, it is the mobility, because there never was a slope I couldn’t traverse or obstacle I could not ford. Also, the Firing control system is excellent and really gives you an edge. It does lack thermal vision but as much I know it was corrected on the latest models. As a bad side, I would point out the crew workload and the lack of air conditioning

3. What were the typical targets/exercises (distances, speed) when practising gunnery? What was the maximum distance at which you opened fire with the M-84? What about the speed of the tank if firing from the move?

Before I answer this question, I would like to point out that I never fired a shot in anger, and all of my firing was done as a training or maneuver. Typical targets we shot were silhouettes and distance was 1800-2500 meters for main gun and 600 to 1000 meters for the coax. 12.7 mm targets were 600-1200 meters, but this varied on the properties of the terrain. Speed of the vehicle was also limited by the properties of the terrain, but it was 20-40 km/h when firing live ammo and 30-50km/h when shooting at a reduced range. My longest shot was 2800 meters and it was a first shot hit. I have fired over 50 rounds as a gunner and hundreds of rounds as a commander. As a gunner, I never missed a target, and this is not only my case, but also the majority of conscripts, because the FCS is very easy to use and weapon training is very accurate.

4. What about firing at night? What was the maximum distance at which you could open fire with sight? Did you use flares or other battlefield illumination techniques? As I understand, early M-84 had a 1st generation IR sight and later models a 2nd generation? Did you use both? How did they compare?

For night shooting both commander and gunner have light amplifier sights. I found them pretty useful for spotting targets, but then again firing was mostly done by normal sights. I trained my soldiers this way and the effects were more than satisfying. Targets were usually illuminated by a small floodlight, or a strobe which would imitate gunshots and the device would turn them off when the hit is registered. We used tracer ammo for night exercises, but never did any additional illumination. Maximum distance I was firing at night was 1600 meters.

The number of tanks with active IR sights is very small, maybe the first batch of about thirty. I never used any of them, so I have no experience with it. My tanks were M84/A first batch and M-84 3rd batch of which none had active IR device

5. What was the typical and maximum rate of fire? What was the limiting factor? What is the typical loadout for the gun (% HE/HEAT/APFSDS)? Were the rounds placed in any specific way in the carrousel?

I never found any limiting factors when it comes to firing. Autoloader is fine-tuned piece of machinery. The average time a gunner needs from acquiring a target to firing the gun is 4-6 seconds for the main gun and 3-5 seconds for coax. I never experienced any autoloader stoppage. We loaded our guns with HE M86 rounds-equivalent to OF 19 of Russian origin, so we never had to ‘’layer a cake’’ for battle. Also, we never chased speed, because there was about 80% first shot first kill rate. We thought of the main gun as a precision tool, so speed was never measured or checked

Usual loadout was 22 HE rounds in the carousel. For exercises we never used additional stowage and racks, because it was quicker to load ammo from the outside into the carousel then from stowage. Every gunner would bring his own ammo belt for coax, but for final exercises we had fully loaded ammo boxes with 250 rounds of 7,62.

I have never fired APFSDS or HEAT round because they were banned from training because of a low supply and stoppage in production due to an arms embargo. There was a plan to make an APFSDS practice round, just like for Abrams tanks, but this never came into fruition. I have seen a demonstration in firing APFSDS on a hard target, and I must say the fireball is impressive.

6. One of the most debated issues of T-72/M-84 family are the ergonomics. How did you find them? What about the automatic loader? Did you think a crew of 3 was enough to operate effectively and perform all the maintenance?

Ergonomics is, as you have said the most debated, but least understood problem in M-84/T-72 family, and it varies a lot depending on the position. Driver has a solid ergonomics, much easier than T-55, especially when it comes to gearboxes and turning levers. Gunner is a pilot, or a video game player in his seat and everything he needs is right in front of him. However commander’s station is maybe the biggest or the second biggest problem in this tank. The biggest problem is not his position being cramped, but the number of duties that he has to perform. Any stoppage on the coax MG is commander’s duty to mitigate, so he must turn around his cupola in order to reach it and fix it. This is especially a hard task if you are over 1.75 in height. ( am 188cm). In case of manual loading the main gun, it becomes a nightmare, because the gun is in a very uncomfortable position relatively to the commander. I have done this only with dummy projectiles to show my trainees how it’s done, but never had an actual stoppage on the autoloader. Next problem is the radio which is located in the height of your thighs so you need to bend in front to operate it. Besides this, commander has a duty to spot targets and train the gunner to it, which becomes impossible in case of even the slightest problem. Most problems we had were ammunition jam in the coax, due to their age and wear, which is easy to fix in theory, but very difficult in combat or live fire situation. In live fire circumstances, you must also control the gunner, who is a conscript, and sometimes scared as hell. For communicating with gunner, besides intercom, you have a wooden stick- Serbian Dzamutka- translated as BIG BLACK DONG which is nominally used for manual loading. When the gunner starts “Throwing sparks’’ you hit him in the head once or twice with Dzamutka , which is usually enough for him to get back on track

It is my belief that the designer of the tank imagined a tanker just like a pilot, pressing buttons and pulling levers, but never doing any hard manual work. This is a good idea, but in case of a slightest problem, it all comes down to the commander, and he is usually overwhelmed with duties so he doesn’t know where to turn.

As for the crew of 3, it has advantages and disadvantages. Good things are that you can also sleep on your posts but in reality it was never enough. As a commander I was always tired in these kind of events, my hands were bloody and covered with cuts and blisters and nobody else could do that job for me. Loading the carousel is commander’s duty, with gunner and driver just lifting and bringing the ammo to you. You need to lay on the floor, accept the round in laying position, move it into the cassette, program the cassette, and then repeat the process 22 times. We usually ‘’borrowed’’ mech infantry troops to perform tasks like maintenance. They would do the hard lifting; we would do the precision work. One additional man was quite enough

There is another ergonomic issue I would like to address here and that is crew safety. I personally found a lot of writing about autoloader being unsafe for the crew, decapitating and tearing of limbs of unsuspecting conscripts. This is all BS, because autoloader, although it looks and sounds pretty scary, especially the cartridge ejector, is perfectly safe. There are guards and shields that are put in position and we train our soldiers to ‘’touch the shield’’ with their elbows, which is a safety indicator. Autoloader can be stopped dead and/ or operated semiautomtically if you need to set the fuse on the HE round (another one of commander’s duties) or if the ejector frame catches something, which never happened.

7. M-84A has a more powerful V-46TK engine. How did it compare to the basic version? Was it as reliable? What about replacing it?

If you compare V46-6 of 730 HP and V46TK of 1000 HP, it’s like comparing a horse and a dragon. The tank acts accordingly. I’ve heard that TK’s had overheating issues but never happened to me, I also know that TK’s were much much more difficult to replace than original V46-6 be cause they had big intercooler and it was next to impossible to unplug all the cables and unscrew all the bolts. Putting it back was a difficult process which I watched, but never took part in it. There were some other maintenance differences, but they are too small to be noted

8. Did you train on using emergency hatch (aka heroes hatch in Russia) in the hull bottom?

Training soldiers to use emergency hatch was one of the fun classes we had. First the driver removes the seat, jumps over it and opens the hatch. He is the first one to egress, followed by gunner. Commander has the job of jumping over the main gun and autoloader and moving to gunner’s position in order to use a tunnel to the driver’s position and goes out last. This was usually a barrel of fun class, because exiting required crouching and rolling in the dirt. The most difficult part is for the driver to remove his seat and for commander to jump over the gun breech. Gunner just slides like a snake.

9. When performing exercises, what was the maximum distance you covered in a day? Were there any issues with the maintenance of the tank?

The longest distance I have covered was about 150 kilometers in a march from one town to another. We were using country roads and it was high summer so it was super-hot and dusty. During the march, one of the torsion bars broke but I didn’t even notice it until I came to the motor pool. It was still better than BTR which was spearheading was on fire twice during this time (besides that it was spitting fire on the exhaust and burning agricultural crops along the way. Nobody bugged me about a torsion bar. The speed of the march was not high, because we were driving in column and there was no opportunity to press the gas pedal as much as we wanted.

10. What was the maximum speed you achieved forward and in reverse? T-64/72/80/90 have lower speeds in reverse when compared to modern Western tanks. Did you find this to be an issue?

Speed is always limited by the terrain, Serbia is mostly mountainous and all the movement was impeded by the terrain. I once remember a professional driver from the factory came to inspect our tanks and we went for a ride. He was pushing the tank as much as it could go on a slope, downhill, something I never did with conscripts. It was a ride of the lifetime

11. Did you practice NBC scenarios? How did you prepare for them?

Tank is equipped with an automatic NBC detection and protection system. We learned how to operate it, but never used it. M-84 has a more complex and more complicated to operate NBC detector than t-72, but we were told not to turn it on because it was sensitive to dust, especially when driving in columns. Operating NBC detector is driver’s responsibility. The system would seal the tank at the moment NBC weapons are detected.

12. What about crossing rivers? If so, how long did the preparations take?

We never practiced deep crossings because 1. Serbia doesn’t have rivers that deep, and 2.Training facilities for tank evacuation were left in Bosnia-Banja Luka, including a pool. Deep wading equipment was mostly returned to the warehouses and not carried in stowage

13. The M-84 was used in combat by Kuwait and by different sides in the Balkans. Did you get any feedback on its use or lessons from combat?

We got feedback from Kuwait that the performance of M-84 tanks was exemplary, primarily because of engine reliability. The famous story is about a race between M-84 and Abrams where Abrams started coughing oil after few kilometers. This was allegedly possible because of a doubled vortex system for air filtration which was self-cleaning and there was no need for stopping and filter changing. The engines performed well without overheating in desert conditions. We had no feedback about combat use, but we know they have been used against Iraqi T-55s to avoid fratricide, which were doubtfully any kind of a problem for M-84.

Croatia was something different. At the opening stages of the war there were many tank losses, but they were not incurred by other tanks. Most losses were ambush style attacks in urban areas where they proved impenetrable from the frontal side for most weapons used- M-79 Osa, M-80 Zolja, Armbrust and AT-3 Saggers, but were vulnerable from the side. My Bn CO was a ‘’ Lollypop ‘’ Survivor, his tank was hit beneath the sideskirts directly into the autoloader. He and the gunner escaped with severe burns, but driver did not. This was mostly the result of a tactics used in the opening days of the war, which saw Mech units undermanned, but nevertheless sent into combat. With these lessons, we have changed the approach to training, especially cooperation between Mech infantry and Tanks, which resulted in 0 tank losses during Kosovo Aggression by the ground fire despite the heavy use of M-84 tanks in 1998/99 Anti-terrorist campaign and subsequent 2004 retaking of ground safety zone

14. Did you have the opportunity to examine or use other tanks? How did they compare to the M-84?

I was also trained on T-55 tanks and M-84 is a quantum leap compared to T-55. Except leg space.

15. In the last few years Serbia has developed M-84AS/AS1. What is your opinion on these upgrades?

I have seen the upgrade, but I doubt we’ll see more of it, so I won’t comment. I think all the countries in the world need a clean sheet tank design, considering the advance of top attack AT weapons. This is something that tanks that were designed in the 80’s and 90’s just cannot cope

16. In 2020 Serbia received the first batch of T-72 white Eagle. This acquisition surprised many analysts because M-84 is available in good numbers and upgrades are available. What is your opinion on this?

For me this was not surprising at all. Serbia has lost the capability to autonomously produce tanks, because most of the factories are left in former Yugoslav republics, including the finisher ‘’Djuro Djakovic’’ which did final assembly. However, there are never enough tanks, Especially in modern combat. I like the idea on White eagle that the commander’s sight has been raised on a platform. I believe it is a good solution because it will much improve the visibility especially in the shorter range, where it is mostly vulnerable. Serbia doesn’t need forty tanks, it needs 4000 but everything is welcome.

17. Russia has developed T-14 Armata, a tank with a different configuration (crew in the hull and unmanned turret. What is your opinion on this configuration?

I personally see Armata as a stopgap solution. The concept is better, especially for the crew and as far as I know, it uses most of the reliable mechanical components from T/72/90 models. However I am not a fan of unmanned turrets. Russians need a clean sheet design too.

18. Is there any anecdote/story you would like to share?

My career on M-84 was mostly uneventful. But I know a lot of people that had very interesting and adventurous careers. I ll try to contact them for you, so we can tell real war stories.

Other interviews:

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.

Friday 16 September 2022

Interview with a former Merkava tanker

A few weeks ago a former Merkava tanker accepted an interview for the blog. Z. served for more than a decade in all Merkava variants and can provide an insight in the operation of this tank. He also participated in the testing of upgraded M60s and T-72s.

1. Hello Z., many thanks for accepting an interview for alejandro-8en.blogspot.com. Can you provide an introduction to your service in the Israeli Army?

I served between 2002-2005 active service
2005-2021 reserve

I first been in the 7th brigade, 77 OZ battalion - at the time they operated Merkava MK2. I first served as a gunner and later on as a commander. Done some combat tours at the end of "Homat Magen" (Defensive shield) operation, so mostly LIC in Palestinians cities and Gaza strip border security.

Later on I was transferred to the IDF experiment unit where I had done different trials in various Merkava variants from 2 to 4. It was the start of deployment of the Mk4 so a lot of "beta testing" was done along with testing some new capabilities to be incorporated into the tank.

I had some time on the Turkish tank project (Sabra) and even had the opportunity to test some upgrade package to an Indian T-72 – A tank very few Israeli tankers encountered – let alone operated.

On my reserve duty I received an Mk 1 until it was completely phased out of service. Then my unit got new tasking as convoy escort with scout Humvees and no tanks.

2. You started your career in the Merkava Mk 2. What were your first impressions? What do you think were the strong and weak points?

The tanks that IDF used were presented to newly drafted soldiers, along with background on the brigade that was operating it at the time. and we were given a “choice” in which we preferred. The IDF had 4 Tanks in its inventory at the time: Magach 6B gal, Magach 7, Merkava Mk 2 and Merkava Mk 3. Even though Mk 3 was a lot more modern than the Mk 2, my brother had served before me on it in the 7th brigade, so I followed his footsteps and marked that first. The Magach tanks were always looked upon by Merkava tankers, since the Merkava was “whole Israeli”, even though the Magachs had a lot of indigenous improvements, making it almost on par with the Merkavas in terms of firepower and armor, still its “cool” factor was much less.

The Mk 2 was quite old at the time, compared to the Mk 3, so it’s easier to mark the weak points:

- Only area stabilization - no point stabilisation (video tracking) like on later models
- Hydraulic turret traverse compared to electrical on the Mk 3
- Smaller calibre on main gun
- 105mm munition spent casing were brass and weren’t self-disintegrating like the 120mm munition.
- Commander sight was pretty much useless for fighting with hatches closed.

Still, it was a valid tank at the time, even though it was slower and weaker than the later variants, it could easily operate in all terrains it met – mud and boulders in the Golan, steep roads in Lebanon and the thin sand of the south.

3. What was the typical speed and distance to the target when firing? And the longest distance at which you ever fired? How did this change with the subsequent Merkava variants?

Since the Mk 2 didn’t have point stabilization, firing on the move took some skill, but wasn’t very hard, I only did it in training since no major tank battles were seen since 1982, but I think the speed was probably around 20KPH to short ranges of no more than 1500m.

The longest shot I had was to 5000m with a hit, the ballistic computer could calculate up to 9999m but naturally it would be very hard to shoot that far since the target would be tiny on the sight if visible at all.

On later variants it was very easy to shoot on the move, on the Mk4 we found out during tests that its accuracy grew even higher when shooting on the move than while static, since the point tracking was used (I’m talking about few centimetres of difference of course on a test target) – while the mk2 was expected and average of hitting the target on the second round, the Mk 3 and 4 was able to hit on the first round every time, as long as the gunner wasn’t blind.

The speeds we were able to shoot on the move on the mk4 was only constrained by the max speed of the tank – which is 64km/h (real top speed is 80 but it was considered unsafe and was electrically limited on the engine).

4. What was the maximum rate of fire you achieved? Did it change noticeably as you went through the different bins? What about when using the 120 mm rounds?

Maximum fire rate was mostly depending on how capable the loader is, what are we shooting at and how good me as a gunner or my gunner was at returning the reticle on the target. We never had to fire that many rounds in a series so it’s hard to answer, we shot on combat scenarios, on combat like training, or testing so achieving a “maximum rate” wasn’t that important. I can say that I was able to load a round in about 6 seconds, from the main loader cartridges, and I’m not a very strong person.

On the Merkava 4 loading took much less time since it has the semi-automatic ammo compartment that ejects the round to the loader’s hands, and he doesn’t need to lift it from the lower compartments.
Of course, there’s a difference on the speed the loader can load from each compartment. Whenever he could, he had to move fresh rounds to the more accessible compartments.

On all Merkavas most of the rounds are in the back end of the hull, half of that is behind the loader and the others are behind the commander. The loader has a quick bin mainly used for fire on the move (you don’t want to stick you hands in the hull when the hull and turret are constantly moving) on the mk2 it had a 6 rounds quick compartment, but it wasn’t very comfortable. On the mk3 there were only 4 but it was much more accessible, the mk4, as I mentioned before, has that fast-loading compartment that holds 10 rounds on 2 revolver like drums hidden behind a steel door and below blowout panels on the turret roof – which is also much safer than the other variants.

5. What was the typical ammunition configuration load (% APFDS/HEAT/other)?

There’s no absolute answer to that – it depends on the scenario, what’s in the weapons depot and so on. Since I mostly served in low intensity combat zones, we usually had a some APFDS rounds, a lot of HEAT rounds, some HE Squash heads, and some flechette rounds. The APFDS was of the low quality – they’re useful to crack concrete cubes blocking the roads before shooting HE on it, but since no enemy tanks are expected no need in carrying the best APFDS the IDF have in store.

For the 120mm smooth bore guns there is no HE squash, but nowadays HEAT, HE, Flechette etc. is no longer used and was replaced with CALANIT APAM-MP-T that can do everything and more, so a tank would carry a mix of those and APFDS in numbers that fit the scenario at hand.

6. Merkava Mk 3 and 4 received a 120 mm gun but carried less ammunition as a result. Did you miss any feature from the 105 mm gun (ammunition types/extra rounds/?

The reduction in number of rounds is not significant, I don’t even remember the difference, but since the chances of hitting the target is doubled its really isn’t an issue. The 45-54 rounds on the tank should be enough for the amount of time a tank is expected to be in combat until supplies reach it.

I’ve already mentioned the change in ammo types – It makes a better loadout since multipurpose round can be used to all lightly armoured targets, entrenched infantry, building etc. and the tank don’t need to waste space for un-needed types of ammo just in case it’s needed.

7. When carrying out the beta training in the Merkava Mk 4, what were the most common issues?

Well, I guess it was more like alpha testing if you want to be exact, since we were the first testers for any new technology, with engineers coming along with us on the tank with their computers hooked up to the systems.

We had all kind of issues at first, some are safety issues – like a case where the turret started rotating non stop in a very specific conditions, only hard reset to the electric power stopped it – we had to spend a week trying to replicate it. Another problem was the brakes not working when going in reverse in a specific condition – emergency breaking it worked.

but most of the times we tested things like:

- How well the stabiliser works in different terrains and conditions – for instance we had to drive 500km on concrete to see the effect the intense vibrations will have on the drift of the system.
- What is the accuracy in different conditions with different parameters?
- We’ve tested an INS navigation system that could replace the GPS if needed.
- We checked the video point track on different target types.
- Firing on helicopters – We used a 1.5m long RC helicopter – we fired an APFDS round – it pierced it right in the centre.

Also tested the different sight systems and thermal imaging devices for the TC and gunner. We even tested what is the fastest speed the turret can rotate before the crew get sick.

8. Merkava Mk 4 incorporated an automatic loader and LAHAT missiles. What are your views on these systems? Do you think the extra range provided by the missile is worth it in the Israeli scenario?

There’s no automatic loader, only semi-automatic, as I’ve explained before – A fast-loading compartment that holds 10 rounds on 2 revolver like drums hidden behind a steel door and below blowout panels on the turret roof. The loader chooses what round he needs using a control panel next to door, the drum spins, the door open and the right round ejects to the loader’s hands.

I’ve never seen the LAHAT, never had it in the turret and never heard about it being used in combat.
Honestly, I don’t see any use for it given the capabilities of the tank to track moving targets and hit them precisely – the tank round is much faster than any missile (approx. – Mach 3). I don’t really know what this missile is capable of in terms of guidance, I know it’s capable for NLOS launch so it might be good for supporting infantry on a target they lase, and the tank don’t see or want to stay in cover and shoot with buddy lase, but there are much more capable platforms for that. I guess it’s a “Nice to have” capability, when needed.

9. When you served in the reserve duty you used a Merkava Mk 1. Did you consider it to be a valid tank post 2005? Did you struggle to operate a tank with no hunter/killer capability and thermal sight?

The Merkava Mk1 was more like a cart than a chariot 😉, its ballistic computer was outdated (same as mk2), most of the tanks (but not all) didn’t have thermals, and even if it did it wasn’t as good as the mk4. There weren’t any new engines and parts, so a lot of the tanks had mechanical problems. It was very slow in general compered to its counterparts. That said, it was still a capable machine compared to the tanks it was expected to meet on the battlefield, especially with the right hands – we were very trained and experienced tank crews, so if we were ever to be called to battle on it, we would’ve managed.

The Mk 4, especially with the trophy and battle management systems is by far a much more capable platform form firepower to crew preservation.

10. Did you carry out gunnery exercises during the night with Merkava Mk 1? Did you use the IR night sight or flares for illumination? In case it is both, which one was more effective?

We mostly used the IR sight, it was the same as using the day sight in terms of accuracy, but night fighting without thermal sights is hard, even with thermals it’s a much slower and difficult process. All this is changing with battle management computers – the TCs have much better situational awareness now. That said, the Merkava is optimised for fighting with closed hatches, until it was introduced tank commanders in the IDF were trained to have their heads outside, which was great for spotting targets and directing the driver but very dangerous. I’ve never been on it in combat, I always wonder how these TCs manage from the inside.

11. Merkava tanks have a number of particular features. One is the spring coil suspension. Could you describe it's advantages and disadvantages? Did you experience any issues when operating in Gaza strip or other terrains (hard soil for example)? How does it compare to the tanks with torsion bars you used (Sabra and T-72)?

I’m not an expert for the subject since I mainly worked on the turret and fire control systems, we had a different branch for manoeuvrability and power train subjects. But I never had a problem with the suspension and the tank performed well in all types of terrain I’ve encountered. The ride was pretty smooth, the gun didn’t jump too much, and maintenance was quite easy.

The torsion bars on the Magach variants (M48/60 in general) were considered highly susceptible to breakdowns and changing/adjusting them was very tough. The spring coil allowed for more clearance beneath the tank and/or more space inside of it.

from the little experience I had on the T-72, it felt very unstable and shaky, although it was quick. When the tank started to move it leaned backwards and then jumped forward (might be a driver issue), it felt very unsafe compared to the Merkava.

12. Did you ever carry soldiers in the rear compartment when training or in missions?

Yes! Although, unlike the common notion, the back corridor wasn’t meant for infantry transportation since most of the space in the back is filled with ammo, on certain combat scenarios it was used to accommodate infantry. When I was operating in the Palestinian city of Nablus, we took out the ammo behind the commander position and had 2-3 soldiers in the back that accompanied us in various tasks. One of them was laying with his gun pointing outside from the corridor hatch (it was left open with a small crack) so he could provide protection against incoming threats coming from the back – which is a blind spot in these confined city streets.

13. What is your opinion on having the engine in the front. Does it make the maintenance more difficult?

It didn’t bother having the engine in the front in terms of maintenance, nor in and any way I can think of. Replacing the engine if needed was quick and easy. And the added value in protection was worth any shortcoming one can find. In the IDF, crew preservation and the life of soldiers in general is top priority since the army is small, trained crews are valuable and the public is not able to sustain a high casualty war. Knowing that the Merkava was built around its crew wellbeing and life made us trust the machine and love it and whoever designed it.

14. Did the Merkava weight limit operations (bridges or other infrastructure)?
Not that I know of.

There are no major rivers where we were expected to fight, the ones there are weren’t a problem for the tank to go through without a bridge, even if an AVLB was needed, the bridge layers in the IDF inventory was suitable for the Merkava.

15. What was the maximum distance you covered in a day during deployments or exercises? Did the tank cope well or needed extra maintenance?

The ranges in Israel are not too long, and when the tanks are needed somewhere they are moved on tank trailers. But we had some occasions where we drove all day, if there was fuel, we were fine. No major maintenance was needed usually, just the usual after movement check-up, we did after each ride including maybe hammering back track pins that might needed to be put back in place, some oil and grease, nothing unusual. On the mk1 on the other hand, a lot of them used to break down on the way from base to the field, depending on how long it has been since they got out of dry storage to be used for training (they were not used for combat in any front at that time)

16. Did you have the opportunity to train with other Armies? What were your impressions? Did you like/dislike any specific equipment?

Sadly, I’ve ever had such an opportunity.

17. Merkava tanks have not been exported, even if some countries were interested (Singapore, Colombia...). Did you ever hear about any interested countries?

I can’t tell you anything official, just rumours I’ve heard, it is usually kept as a secret - I know Singapore were interested, but I don’t know if they bought any, there was some talks about them getting a deal to have tanks delivered to them in case of emergency, but I can’t say for sure.
I’ve also heard the Mexicans bought 2 Mk 1s.

The Sabra tank developed for the Turkish is pretty much an Merkava mk4 built around an M-60 in terms of armor and systems.

18. At some stages the Israel Army has considered replacing Merkava with M1 Abrams. What is your opinion on this possible replacement?

Having an indigenous tank in Israel, or any local design and manufacture means is a good decision in my eyes. Israel learnt that it can always rely on the goodness of strangers, and it must support and defend itself. The world response in the Ukrainian situation made this even more clear for some Israelis. that was the thinking when the Merkava project first came into Gen. Israel Tal’s mind and sadly it’s still true.
Aside from that, the Abrams in the testing made here had trouble in different places that the Merkava excel – Its jet engine had trouble in the powder like sand in the south and the Merkava performed better on the Golan height boulders.

The Abarms is a great and proven design, but the Merkava is perfectly sewn for Israeli needs and having it is great for the moral of its soldiers and the strength of its military industries. So, I’m happy the project still going on.

Section on M60 Sabra and T-72

19. What was your first impression of the M60T? How did it compare to the Merkava variants you used before?

The Sabra was like a downgraded Merkava Mk 4 built into the M60, it has up to date fire control system and sights and an upgraded armor package. I’m not sure if the engine was replaced but the major downsides compared to the merkava was its torsion bar system that was difficult to maintain.

20. M60s are famous for its large internal space but high silhouette. Do you think it was a good trade off? Was it noticeably more comfortable than Merkava?

I don’t remember it to have a bigger silhouette than the Merkava Mk 4 , which is quite tall but the merkava is more streamlined which make it better at hiding in terrain hull down.

I dont recall the room on the inside being larger than the mrkava, at least not more than the Mk 4 and 3 that was more comfortable than the Mk 1 and 2 due to the lack of hydraulic pipes attached to the turret walls and ceiling.

21. How did the suspensions compare? Do you think torsion bars are less exposed to AT missiles/projectiles but more vulnerable to IEDs?

Can’t really answer about the vulnerability of it, but in general the merkava was better equipped for dealing with these threats, especially with the added hull armor fitted to the earlier models like the 2D and the 3D.

22. M60T basically received a Merkava Mk 4 FCS. Was there any limitation in the technology that was integrated? Was it downgraded like Soviet/US tanks sold abroad?

I don’t know exactly what’s the difference because my time on it was limited, but I doubt the system would be as good as the merkava system. Israel would never export its best systems as far as I know.

23. How do they compare as shooting platforms?

I don’t have an answer to that.

24. Do you know if any other country got interested in the upgrade?

I doht know, to my knowledge this was a joint venture for Israeli Military Industries and the Turkish

25. Do you think the M60 has more room to upgrade or the T variant is a good finishing point?

Any tank, as a weapon platform has room to upgrade. I think the sabra project is more like a fresh start for this aging platform by moving it from the analog to the digital world.

26. What was your impression of the T-72? How did it compare to the Merkava variants and M60T you used before?

As I said in the original interview, I found the T-72 to be unsafe,uncomfortable and outdated compared to the tanks it was facing at the time and by far by compared to contemporary ranks it might face in the future.

27. Do you think the lower height and silhouette is worth the crew constraint?

I think the turret space is way too small and I can’t imagine how it would feel like being cramped in there for longer durations. I don’t think the short silhouette is that significant in today’s battlefields.

28. Can you describe the upgrade? Was there any system from the original vehicle left (stabilizer)?

I’m not entirely sure what the actual upgrade was supposed to be. if I recall the tank sights and stabilizer was to be replaced. To my knowledge Elbit systems never won that contract in the end.

29. What did you think of the autoloader? Did it work reliably? Did you have any reliability issues in general?

Haven’t had the chance to test it, but I think the placement of the ammo exposed on the turret bottom is a major downside in terms of vulnerability and having one less crew member is not that good for the tank and crew wellbeing.

30. T-72 was designed as a mobilization tank, which would have been built in huge quantities during a war. Did you get this impression?

It could definitely drive fast and seems like being cheap was a major consideration. I always prefer buying expensive hardware that would last longer and serve me better. I would certainly prefer not being inside a fighting vehicle that its designers preferred saving money instead of saving my life.

31. Did the internal volume limit the equipment that could be integrated?

It probably did. That said, another of the turret space is used by the mechanical fire control system, maybe when replaced with a digital on can make some room inside, but not much.

32. Soviet tanks are usually criticised for the ergonomics. How did you find them in T-72?

One word – terrible.

33.Did you carry out any mobility trials in different terrains? Were there any problems with torsion bars/filters/engine?

Haven’t had enough time on it to know. We mainly had a trail on concrete track with bumbs on the way, just to test the original stabilizer.

34. All Soviet tanks had a low reverse speed. Was this your impression for T-72? Do you think this is an issue in combat?

Guess it depends on the doctrine, if you expect your soldiers to always drive forward, I guess its OK. In most training scenarios I encountered you sometimes have to back up fast, for instance if you’re in a firing position and have to get down before being hit by an atgm, or just to switch positions.

I know that the Syrian used side firing positions, where the turret is facing in a 90 degree angle to the turret to be able to get down by moving forward. This is a very dangerous thing to do in a tank especially when all your ammo is in the center of the tank and with contemporary apfsds round being able to pierce through sand barriers.

35. Is there any anecdote you would like to share before we finish the interview?

A lot of times a call for putting the tanks behind in favor of other platforms is raised from time to time, but then some conflict start that prove it’s still needed in the battlefield.

After seeing the Russian invasion into Ukraine – the use of tanks in it and the casualties inflicted by the AT missiles, A threat the IDF met in the 2006 Lebanon war and made decision makers to budget the replacement of all IDF tanks to a Merkava Mk 4 with the trophy system incorporated on it – a decision that already saved lives in recent conflicts where countless ATGMS were fired on IDF tanks were intercepted by the system.
Also, the addition of battle management systems made joint ops natural, it was amazing to see minimal blue on blue casualties in recent large operations in tight urban environments.

All that teach us that the tank as a platform is not obsolete and will continue to adjust and evolve to meet current needs. The Merkava Mk 5 is now being talked about especially in light of the conflict in eastern Europe it is said to include 360 cameras that will improve situational awareness of the crew, among other improvements – the days of the tank is certainly not over.

Other interviews:

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.