Think about it right, the Israelis have essentially had to work in odd quasi-urban settings as the occupying force for some 30 years now. There's little need to field an IFV/CFV type vehicle, and the APC then simply gets bigger and bristles with machinguns and other things useful for more close-quarters armor work. If you need the greater power, the Israelis will just go to a tank, and obviously feel no need for the APC really to have serious anti-armor capability, though they have set up numerous M113s and Zeldas with TOW/Imp-TOW/TOW-2 like systems, and field a number of more man-portable systems as well.
Another factor might be that western IFVs were designed to face a Soviet threat consisting of a great many thousands of tanks and IFVs - making tank-killing capability a very high priority. Israel, on the other hand, faces, even in full-on war with its neighbours, a very different threat. Israel can rely on having complete air superiority from the start, and a good degree of tank-on-tank superiority as well. Therefore, they don't need to focus on giving every possible vehicle tank-killing capability, and can instead invest their limited funds on greater numbers of cheaper APCs - which will allow them to move more of their troops, while still providing adaquate protection/defense against non-tank threats.
But the IDF can´t just equip their forces for urban fights. In the past they had to fight quite a numner of Tank Battles on the Golan and in Sinai if my memory is right.
Why not? Their tank forces have shown themselves to be more than capable in dealing with armored opponents with both superior equipment and a serious advantage in numbers. I think the Israelis who were driving M51 IShermans in 1973 and holding their own against T-72s would probably say that they don't need to be fielding their APCs in order to even the playing field and raise parity between numbers of armored vehicles.
Furthermore with a peace treaty with both Egypt and Jordan, Iraq in turmoil and Iran having an interal struggle between the popular reformists and the hard-line clerical elements, that leaves Syria and the puppet state of Lebanon as the only aggressors left to tackle the "Israeli problem." Israel has defeated Syria on numerous occasions, and now commands a significant techonological advantage. Their position allows them to concentrate much more on the internal problems they are facing and have large portions of their more mobile infantry forces set up to readily tackle these situations.
A comparable situation would be that of Canada, who could easily go to a much more highly mobile force, and is trying to do so. Their Army could be perfectly organized as a light, tank-less force, relying heavily on air mobility and wheeled vehicles. How can they manage this? Simply put, Canada only borders the United States, and hasn't fought a war ever without being a part of a multi-national coalition. Their allies in a conflict could easily provide the armored muscle if the situation demands it.
First I believe why you got no responses before, was when talking about tactical doctrines, well that could lead to violations of our OPSEC rules so perhaps that was a reason for silence (at least from us that has served in the IDF). Now what I am saying in the following paragraphs here is all public knowledge as well as just skimming over what I believe is obvious and not going into details so I think I should be ok.
Ok the IDF in the past four years was mostly involved in a low intensity urban conflict and well our doctrine for fighting in such reflects that reality. So yes the tactical doctrine is different as is I believe a tactical doctrine differs from a low intensity urban conflict, Vs. say a full-scale combat in open warfare.
Secondly in the latter half of the past four years, we did deploy tanks in some areas and well besides the obvious 120mm gun, I believe they have mortars as well as recently the Gil was added, though for more on this I refer you to Javehn for he was a tanker and well I don’t want to step on his toes if you know what I mean, being that this is more "his subject" then it is mine
So when heavier fire power is needed, well we don’t just rely on those APC’s machine guns
Now with that said, we do have APC'c fully equipped and we can add more if the “situation” requires.
Israel is purpoted to have nuclear weapons and they clearly have the ability to air deliver them. Which Arab country would want to invade Israel and risk nuclear retaliation. If they are not likely to have to fight that kind of conflict then theri need to kill tanks really is limited. i havent for example ever seen the Palestinians using armour.
.......Which Arab country would want to invade Israel and risk nuclear retaliation. .......
The surrounding arab states would only attempt another conventional invasion if they knew they had the military advantage, therefore, it has not happened since 1973 as they know that it cannot be achieved.
They can only hope to defeat Israel in the political field (via the international community, UN, etc.)
There are two distinct reasons why the IDF does not mount turreted 30 mm cannon and the like on its APCs and heavy tank based carriers. (I am not talking about the use of Gatlings and other rapid fire weapons,mounted on AFV platforms, but regular troop carriers.)
The reasons are -
Firstly, doctrine. Secondly, costs.
Doctrine. The IDF do not believe in the IFV. They would rather use APCs as a battle taxi, to deliver infantry onto an objective where they disembark and fight. IFVs are seen as expensive, over-complex and vulnerable. The job of fending off enemy MBTs and IFVs is left to tanks accompanying Israeli APCs.
Indeed the IDF has drawn the sensible conclusion that if anything, APCs need even heavier protection than the tanks they accompany. An MBT can stand off an objective and destroy it at a distance. Given boots on the ground are required to take and hold an objective, an APC is subject to greater risk than a tank.An APC has to advance through a fire beaten zone and deliver its infantry load on to the objective. Hence the Achzarit, designed as a heavy assault carrier, capable of crossing the rough terrain of the Lava fields west and south of Damascus, whilst survivng enemy fire.
The Achzarit is equipped with a remote weapon station. Unlike the turret of a typical IFV, this has a minimal internal footprint, it doesn't take up space and volume better used for the machine's primary purpose, carrying infantry. Those of you who have been in the Achzarit and an IFV, will know that although the former is cramped, there is much more room than say on a Bradley or Warrior.
Costs. Finance, as ever, is a real problem. If the IDF had more money it would have bought more remote weapon stations and equipped them with 7.62mm MAGS or 12.7mm weapons. I have also seen 40mm grenade launchers fitted to some of the Rafael remote weapon stations. Indeed the Achzarit, as first envisaged, was meant to have three of these stations armed with 7.62 MAGS.
When the IDF considered the Bradley, the first thing that Rafael did with some loaned vehicles, was strip off the turret, replace it with a simple remote weapon station and add extra applique armour. Unfortunately the suspension struggled with the extra weight.
Incidently it is a common mistake to think that the Achzarit was designed for urban warfare. It was not. It was intended for Combined Arms warfare in a heavy threat environment. Similarly the tank based low intensity warfare carriers such as the Nagmashot, Nagmachon and Nakpadon were designed for use in the hills of Lebanon, not the narrow streets of Hebron or Gaza.