max steel wrote:But Merkava-IV(when it came) was busted by Russian anti-tank weapon by Hezbollah .
Merkava IVs held up well - they took many hits and few penetrations but there were no catastrophic explosions, at most a crewmember was killed or injured.
Fact is, nearly any tank would have fared worse in the same position as the Merkava IV's were in. The lesser Merkava IIIs and IIs took large casualties; which are still basically the same gen as the Leopard IIs and M1 Abrams.
So their damage control was quite good. The real problem was the tactics employed and the foolish tank rush against entrenched uphill Hezbollah anti-tank positions and teams - a ridiculously dumb move by any standards but the Israeli commanders were arrogant enough to think they could pull it off, overconfident in their technology and training (which is good, but not invulnerable), and dismissive of the enemy's technology and training - thinking them to be the same Palestinian rock-throwers or demoralized Arab conscripts they faced in past wars.
The Merkava series however is too limited to really be used by any other than the Israelis and similar nations with similar needs, and in the role of mobile bunkers basically.
They are too heavy and demanding to be used in manuever-warfare; in Russia or Eastern Europe they would simply get stuck in the mud, outflanked, outrun, broken-down in the conditions, unable to ford rivers nor cross many bridges, etc...
The Armata tank however should be able to combine the manueverability, flexibility and lower-profile of the Soviet tank designs, with a main-gun superior to that of the Leopard II's Rhinemetal barrel, and a level of protection considerably greater than any Merkava IV.