Put it another way:  Take the 40 ton German Puma, bump up the frontal arc armor to 40mm-class protection and put a 105mm gun on it a-la Stryker FSV or a 120mm AMOS, add two remote weapon stations with a 25mm grenade launcher/5.56 combo and you have a very competent tank@ 50 tons that can do 95% of what a Leo-2 can do plus evacuate wounded, carry a 1/2 squad, etc.  Easier on roads and bridges, parts commonality, very little loss of capability in the vast majority of cases.

 

Most anything that could destroy such a Puma-tank could also destroy a MBT:  120mm/125mm class APDS, Javelin, Hellfire, etc.  You would keep some MBTs, but to replace 50% of existing MBTs with such a vehicle would offer significant savings and a real increase in capability, not a loss.

The Merkava tank was primarily designed to fight other tanks not support infantry or operate in urban terrain.  The main priority of protection saw the engine in the front for extra protection and the rear door was provided to speed up ammunition resupply.  The fact that in an emergency you can cram in some infantry or carry a casualty is a benefit not a design requirement.

 

The time it takes to resupply was seen as critical based on the experience from the Golan in 73.  Israel designed a main battle tank that sees fighting other tanks as the most important factor driving the design.

 

For carrying infantry Israel likes to use modified MBT's including creating the Namer which is a modified Merkava IV carrying 9 dismounts.  They use modified tanks to carry infantry and combat engineers.  Protection is a very high priority.

The Merkava tank was primarily designed to fight other tanks not support infantry or operate in urban terrain.  The main priority of protection saw the engine in the front for extra protection and the rear door was provided to speed up ammunition resupply.  The fact that in an emergency you can cram in some infantry or carry a casualty is a benefit not a design requirement.

 

The time it takes to resupply was seen as critical based on the experience from the Golan in 73.  Israel designed a main battle tank that sees fighting other tanks as the most important factor driving the design.

 

For carrying infantry Israel likes to use modified MBT's including creating the Namer which is a modified Merkava IV carrying 9 dismounts.  They use modified tanks to carry infantry and combat engineers.  Protection is a very high priority.

For carrying infantry Israel likes to use modified MBT's including creating the Namer which is a modified Merkava IV carrying 9 dismounts.  They use modified tanks to carry infantry and combat engineers.  Protection is a very high priority.

 

Bingo.   

 

 

 

Then you don't understand the role the mortar plays, why it was installed in the Merkava, and how it's employed. It's used for various things but mostly to engage enemy AT teams behind cover the main gun can't reach and when a 120mm round is too expensive a solution.  Mortars on tanks are not unique to the Merkava in Israeli service.  On one level it's there to support the tank unit when they don't have enough infantry support.  Unlike the US Army I don't believe IDF tank battalions contain a mortar unit so the ones on the tanks are often all that's available.

 

 

Cut off my other comments.  the Merkava 4 has an integrated 60mm mortar.  I believe that is more of an infantry support weapon than an anti-tank weapon...

No worries.  Obviously it's also used for other things such as laying smoke and illumination.

 

T-90 although may look like a T-72BU  it is in fact, very different.

No1, It has much longer range and much better off road capabilities 

No2, It carries an anti-infantry shrapnel shell

No3 An upgraded shtora system

No4 Much better armour, it uses the new Kontakt 5 armour.

The T-90 is also PROVEN to be better than an M1A1 and M1A2 tank.

No1, The T-90 has active armour which has been tested against the RPG-32 , the most advanced RPG made in Russia on its side while the M1A1 and M1A2 have been recorded to have been severely damaged, disabled or even destroyed by even the older versions of the RPG 7

No2, The T-90 has better fire control system as compared to the best NATO  tank in terms of fire-control, the Leopard 2A4 , it was able to destroy more targets of  the same dimensions in the allocated time

No3 It has anti-infantry shrapnel  which the both Abrams tanks do not have.

No3 The T-90 fares better off-road than most other MBT's similar to it

No4 The M1A2 has a weak point on its rear which is its secondary generator which powers the tank in case it is disabled. It can be easily destroyed by the T-90's  machinegun.

No5 The T-90's active armour has been tested by the most advanced flechette sabot discarding shell and the T-90 was able to drive on and perform perfectly

No7 Even the marine version of the M1A1 does not carry any technology comparable to the Shtora system so it is unlikely to be able to develop one since it is economically unable to develop its army significantly.

No8 The Shtora system can also 'deflect' AGM-65 Hellfire missiles and its other versions

               Therefore I can conclude that the T-90 is far more superior than the T-72 and its other Allied/NATO counterparts