Re: Armour vs. civilian
 

Man, these tanks could sure use a lock.

Re: Armour vs. civilian
 

They do, just in Hollywood they never seem to be used. ;)

Guess in game, the small % of getting it done is the TC who forgot to secure it, or left it so to allow quickly taking a peak now and then.

Re: Armour vs. civilian
 

Locking the hatches would mean a few more seconds to get out of a burner, should it happen. Or the thing could jam. It could mean the difference between making it out or becoming a crispy critter. I doubt I would dog the hatches, if I were an AFV crewman.

Cheers
Andy

Re: Armour vs. civilian
 

They do have good locks, even the good old M113 APC have the ability to lock all the hatches, access lids to the cooling system, fuel tank, engine room from inside the crew compartmen.

Does the Merkava Mk4 have an external Fire Extinguisher system handle?

The MBTs, IFVs and APCs I have worked on, all the Fire Extinguisher system have been to the engine room, and the bottles stored in the crew compartment.

In my case there are only two vehicles that I have worked on, where you have external Fire Extinguisher system handle, and that is the M113, which I also have been a commander on, and the CV9030N IFV. But, the Fire Extinguisher still goes to the engine room, and does no harm to the crew.

I find this question very interesting.
But, I ran the test and these rock throwing dudes managed to knock out my tanks, but with a very good help from me.

And like Mobhack wrote:
I just have to visualize these individuals ripping up a hatch, these hatches usually is a though nut to crack, believe me, I have a couple of them on my conscience. And even with the right tool, time and a peaceful environment they are a hard nut to crack.

Anyway, I enjoy reading about all the “gung ho” ways to knock out a tank.
Thx all :D

Re: Armour vs. civilian
 

If the crew si stupid enoug hand you know how to do it, yes, you could take out a Merkava with out any weapons exept for rocks. You will require a very large set of balls though. Israeli tanks that get overrun by infantry are fired on by the other tanks with MG and Flacchets, as a drill. They also fire WP and turn their turets 360 degrees. If someone dose open the hatch the crew has M16s and they will use those. They will also put a granade on out and reclose the hatch. All in all its not probabale, but possible. As for flipping a merkava over, you would need alot of people. as for lighting a fire on it/ under it, it wouldent do you much good.

Re: Armour vs. civilian
 

The tank crew has M16s??? Why not M4s or Uzi? M16s are a bit long.

Re: Armour vs. civilian
 

The point is, as Andy noted, it is possible in the game any "infantry" unit to knock out a tank in a close assault even though, in the case of "rocks" they do not actually have an HE kill rating. It's a long shot but it COULD happen and the odds increase if you deliberatly set up a "scenario" where the crew allows a mob to overrun their tank and do whatever they want to it. Had there been even rudimentary infantry support or the crew was allowed to fight back the odds of this happening drop dramatically

Don

Re: Armour vs. civilian
 

Sorry, we call all of the diffrent M16 versions here "M16", regardless of them being short/sawed/heavy barrel and so on. Tank crews have either what you would call "CAR-15" or Israeli made Sawed-Off M16s.

Re: Armour vs. civilian
 

Speaking as a former IDF tank driver, the personal weapon was the short-barreled Galil, not the M16. The M16 is much too fragile because of the soft plastic it uses - when you throw it onto the tank it would just crack.

Re: Armour vs. civilian
 

Speaking as a much younger and humbler ex-IDF tank commander, we switched to short M16s in 2004/2005. I had the Galil and afterwards the M16. I agree the Galil is more durable, but the M16 dose not break or anything. You just need to clean it better than the Galil. On the plus side its much lighter, and its much more accurate.