The Eitan Armored Personal Carrier (APC) is Israel’s Future APC, called by numerous sources, both in Israel and abroad – the “best APC in the world” and “most protected”.
But why is Israel making the Eitan Armored Personal Carrier, made by Israel Tank Authority (Mantak- same ministry of defense organization making the Merkava) at all?? It has a giant fleet of thousands of M-113 and now also the new Namer Armored Personal Carrier. In fact, initially the IDF meant on making only the Namer which was suppose to replace the aging, rusty and poorly protected M-113. The M-113 could NOT offer adequate protection against modern threats like the ATGM’s and even RPG’s. Only against small arms. The IDF learned that lesson in blood in the 2014 war, when an M-113 was taken out with an ATGM and 7 soldiers killed.
So the Namer came to life. It’s basically a turret less Merkava with all its protection outside and adjoining technology in it. But, and this is a big but – The Namer is is extremely expensive at 3 million a unit and the IDF could only afford 300 out of the 800 it initially wanted. War at the end of day is money and the one whom wins is that whom has more money and resources. The IDF just can’t go around spending billions on only one function of the modern battle field. But still, there are thousands of the old M-113 in Israel’s inventory – So what did the Israeli MOD do? Hence the Eitan Armored Personal Carrier (APC) came to life- a fully wheeled cheaper version of he Namer.. Yet it has a strategic advantages over the Namer as it’s wheeled and they can produce them and equip en mass to replace the “not-relevant-to-today’s-combat” M-113.
The Eitan APC being built
Why is it the “Best APC in the world”? Nobody really knows all the top secret tech inside (just like in the Namer or the Merkava). None of it leaked or was published and most of the reports were just repeating the Israeli MOD press release on it. In fact, in this site, which makes comparisons between the Eitan Armored personal carrier and other APC’s, you can humorously see how there simply is almost NO info in the Eitan “column”.
Here is what we do know Eitan Armored Personal Carrier –
- It has all the relevant tech which is in the latest Merkava 4 upgrade the Barak including the Artificial intelligence (relevant – for example it won’t include a things related to a barrel – because there is NO barrel)
- Complete Battle management system synchronization with other APC, AFV’s, tanks and none armored corps units (infantry, air force, navy and etc.)
- Can gain speeds of up to 90 km like a car,
- weighs half of what its counterepart Namer or Merkava weigh – 30 tones (VS 60 tonnes)
- But despite that still is the HEAVIEST and most protected APC in the world. Its first layer of armor is made of nano technology and armored panels are attached to each other with screws. Hence if one of them is damaged they can even be replaced in field, above that it has reactive armor and above it protecting it is the Trophy active protection system. In front part – like the Merkava and Namer – is the engine.
- 750 horse power
- Automatic air filler if one of the wheels are punctured. In any case it can keep moving if it loses one of the wheels (at least until it can be repaired)
- Has extreme suspensions like in the Merkava. Meant to deal with the rocky tough terrain in northern Israel, Lebanon and Syria
- Modular
- In addition to the toughest rocky land, also went through the most rigorous tests and adaptations for all the other terrains of Israel and the surrounding countries – sand, water, and mud
The Eitan being test drive in sand – most common terrain in the middle east.
- Electrical back door that opens into a ramp
- Passenger stools are padded, includes a water station and AC for the middle east sizzling summers. These are NOT just comfort amnesties but the human body gets stronger when it is in AC even for a few minutes in the sizzling summer heat.
- Has a screen for the operators and passengers (on the back door) showing them all the relevant data (so they will have good situational awareness) like map, inner systems, outer camera’s and etc,
- And off course a remote operated gun station and there are also future plans for a ATGM’s
However, it is has a little LESS armor and protection than its counterparts the Namer and the Merkava and hence offers LESS PROTECTION. So why did Israel and the Israel Tank Authority (which is making the Eitan) bother at all? 2 reasons – war economics and the strategic advantage of having a speedy and mobile way to ferry soldiers around.
War economics- As mentioned the Namer is EXPENSIVE. But still there are thousands of the old M-113 in inventory, which was simply irresponsible for the IDF to use in combat cause they were death traps. So what did it do? Hence came to life the Eitan Armored personal carrier – a cheaper version the IDF can produce and en mass, fast and cheaply
…and lets face it – wars are won and lost via who has more money and resources. That’s exactly how the soviet T-34 “beat” the German Tiger – on paper the Tiger was better but the Soviets could produce the T-34 in huge speeds and cheaply and equip their soldiers with more of them and faster. It fit the soviets numbers game the German army had no answer for that, even if on paper the Tiger was “Better”. One German Tiger could NOT beat three T-34’s, even if it was a little better. If the soviets would have built a sophisticated Tank like the Tiger, they would have built less which meant less firepower for them.
Why is it cheaper? A little less layers of protection around it, tires, and lots of civilians systems inside. The First 2 reasons which make it a little more vulnerable. Why, First wheels can be a headache because unlike tracked versions, they can be shot and get a flat tire. Best APC or not, a flat tire is flat tire. And that is despite the fact that the Eitan will have a system which automatically fills air if one of the tires it is. And also, in any case it can keep driving also with 3 wheels and not 4 but still that is only if one wheels is shot and not more.
And a word about “less” protection – The logic is simple as at present the only real threats to Israels armored corps are RPG’s or ATGM’s and very power IED’s as it will be able to easily stand any other small arms threats. kinetic shells are also not a threat as there is no conventional threat over Israel’s head. Regarding ATGM’s ,at least in Israel’s case, in the cat & mouse game between the armored core vehicles and the ATGM, the vehicles are winning. The Trophy APS – which the Eitan APC will be fully protected with – has made the ATGM almost obsolete as a threat. So against Asymmetric threats, aside from extreme IED’s, it is full protected.
And regarding IED’s (WITHOUT any connection to IAI Cims anti-IED technology which detects and neutralizes IED threats and is operational already assuming any IED’ slipped through) – It is actually is BETTER protected from underbelly IED’s because it is higher because of the wheels, hence there is there is MORE space between the ground and first layer of protection. And regarding roadside IED”s – exactly what the protection of the Eitan vs the Namer/Merkava is classified. However it weighs 8 ton more than the M-113 and other APC’s – hence it is the most protected in the world.
However, having said that, that is certainly one of the compromises of not having more Namers. Managing war economics is a cold cost/benefit analysis of how to spend and where and putting it bluntly – who will more be protected and who less. It is still the best decision Israel could have made in light of the constraints, The other options are using M-113, which are ATGM death traps, or having more exposed soldiers. Or simply buying more APC’s on the expense of other place and then the IDF gets weaker elsewhere. We off course don’t know the exact cost benefit calculation, but we can be sure it’s the best there was. At least for IDF troops, they have the most protected APC in the world when being ferried into a battle zone.
But that is Asymmetric threat – what about conventional Army VS army threats? Here is where another disadvantage probably comes in. But it’s a disadvantage for all APC’s, not just the Eitan. The Eitan APC is not protected as the Namer and the Merkava and can probably take less kinetic energy tank shell hits. But frankly, the Eitan APC, is NOT meant to deal with tanks of tank shells anyhow and are simply an accessory to infantry forces. But again, in the cost benefit calculation analysis and taking into account the present threats Israel faces, there is simply no real conventional threat over Israels head at present so tanks in any case aren’t going to be facing Israeli APC’s in the foreseeable future.
Even if the unbelievable DOES happen and tomorrow some conventional army starts marching towards Israels border, the APC’s are the last ones to see the front lines. There are many “layers” of combat before the APC’s come in, like Air force, tanks, artillery and even exposed foot soldiers behind those tanks. If they do send the APC’s to ferry soldiers into a battle zone, the first ones will be the more protected Namer and even the Merkava’s. The Merkava actually is hybrid and doubles as an APC’s – and can carry up to eight soldiers in addition to the crew (12 together). APC’s are 2nd to the front-lines and in case are more adequate for asymmetric warfare, than conventional.
And the 2nd reason Israel went on to develop the Eitan is speed and mobility. It is a strategic advantage the wheeled fast and mobile Eitan has which frankly the IDF didn’t appreciate until recently. Why? Same reason the Merkava is slower and less maneuverable than other tanks (and more emphasis was on firepower and most of all, survivability). Israel didn’t really NEED fast and maneuverable AFV’s as it fights “close to home”. Distances are small, and despite the propaganda out there, it DOENS’T have colonial conquest aspirations far from Israel’s borders. It simply never saw a reason to emphasize speed over protection.
But despite that, even the IDF came to the conclusion of the strategic advantages of having a speedy wheeled APC that can go 90 KM an hour and can use civilian roads. Because of that, they don’t need clumsy slow armored carriers to ferry it from one location to another, one front to another, an advantage that also means also more efficiency and cost cutting. Problems in northern Gaza, then in Southern Gaza, and then near the Egyptian border – the wheeled APC can get there in no time. The Asymmetric threats Israel faces can be dynamic but Eitan APC is one possible answer to it.
And the Eitan is NOT the only none tank armored core fighting vehicle being developed primarily for asymmetrical threats. Also the Carmel Armored Fighting Vehicle, a futuristic fighting vehicle which can partly replace also the Merkava in some of the tasks. It is designed from the ground up for the asymmetric warfare and is much faster and smaller just like the Eitan, and with many more extreme features. However, the Carmel is still in the concept stage while the Eitan is almost complete but both, along with the Namer, will give the IDF best vehicles to flushing out hostiles in asymmetric environment.
Israeli FirePower LTD. 