Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Do you even read my posts before tossing repetitions in my face? I've already been over that "point"...

Its still adherent to the original Merkava concept and layout, keeping both the strengths and vices of same, which is relevant to remeber when appraising it.

However, you jumping back and forth between generationally different models of the comparative families making absolute statements trying to make "points" isn't.

And your debating technique is absolutely enervating, stop making ridiculous absolutist claims all the time!

What does "better design than Abrams for purposes that israel needs" actually mean?

Was it "kosher" or something. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Perhaps stating specific claims that actually mean something instead of making fuzzy mumbo-jumbo statements would help the discussion go forward? I've never stated that the Merkava is inferior regarding Israeli requirements, don't pretend I did...

And what on earth makes you think that the Merkava is a "defensive" tank? IDF tank doctrine is pretty agressive you know...

Lower sprint-speed doen't make it "defensive"... its not some sort of "land-battleship" that crawls at a slow walking speed...

Whoopie, more "absolute" statements...

The Merkava family are designed to be capable of good mobility on rugged and rocky terrain. USMC M1A1 has had trouble keeping up in rocky and hilly terrain f e.

Ergo, the absolute claim that the "M1 has superior mobility" is false in this case.

Take up the "standard protection" relative to the Abrams with the Abrams-fans... you're in for a flame-fest there...

The Abrams, especially M1A1HA and onwards are very well protected vehicles, at least over the frontal arc.

Hint; If the penetrator gets through to the engine, the tank is penetrated...

The engine isn't armour, and its placement is a crew survivability trait. Chances are the tank will be on fire after a hit to the engine. Even though the engine compartement is separated from the fighting compartement (on which modern tank isn't it?), smoke and heat will blind it. Fire or not, if the engine is gone, the tank is not really fightable any more. Hand-cranking the turret won't leave it very combat effective f e... laser-ranging on battery power can be sustained for how loing and so on... not to mention that they are a sitting duck which the enemy has already ranged in. Best opportunity is to leave the tank and scarper before more nasty stuff comes your way. Quite dumb sticking around during those circumstances on the target range after all that trouble has been gone through to let the crew survive in the first place...

Shooting out the engine is an effective way to get a mission kill.

Even if you actually knew exactly how the armour matrix of the Merkava 4 was composed (I sorta gather that you don't), you'd still not know how it compares to that on other tanks were...

Or would the composite armour I can go out and make in my own garage by hitherto unknwon manufacturing techniques and for armour used materials, thereby being newer and "more modern" automatically be better than anything else in the world?

Hate to rain on your parade JaM, but superior MerkIV armour is merely your assumption... It might be better, it might be worse, most likely its roughly equal...

Protection levels quoted are also either your own (you don't give references) or other peoples guesstimates, not actual values, so stop stating them as such. At best they are good guesses.

I wasn't debating "estimates of X mm of RHA at Y degrees of angle" here, I was talking about general armour layout and possible compromised over weight distribution necessities, you seem to need to defend your fav tank by quoting loose numbers...

Huh? The glacis plate (which is a very small part of the frontal target profile btw) was always a compromise, not a "strongpoint"...

And why don't you give the glacis thickness of the Merkava while you're at it?

Could it be that you're referring to the M1A2 glacis-plate as a vulnerability while at the same time not knowing anything about that aspect of the Merkava's?

No its not.

The acute angle can allow for warhead misfire on older fuzes (sort of the same thing thats behind the slat armour concept) by the warhead being deteriorated by damage before being detonated. LOS increase of plate thickness is the main effect on functioning HEAT penetrator streams.

Or are you just mixing up "deflect" and "protect" here?

Uh... what do you mean with "sheated APFSDS"?

Most ATGM's will not hit the glacis plate...

Exactly how much do you know a BM-42M will penetrate when the armour is angled at 80+ degrees?

Gee, nice assumption that the Merkava will hit the golden spot every time... and somehow the Merkava IV's FCS makes its armour superior too...

And again you are just dropping numbers you've either ripped from the internet or somebodys book, or even made up yourself. You leave no references to anything and state guesstimates as fact.

All I gather from this discussion is that you're behaving as a Merkava fanboy...

You automatically choose to interpret every figure and rumour you come across in a way to reinforce you own assumption of Merkava supremacy... including making flawed comparisons always assuming best case scenario four you favourite and worst case for the comparison... then you abuse topic drift to change the subject all the time...

Where did I notice you doing that before, eh...

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Returning to the original question: How about making Merkava 4 recon APC - Merkava with reduced ammo (1/2 of AP ammo ? HE already few enough) and 4 people carry capacity ? It would be APC class, upgradable from APC...

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Thank you.

Isn't the recce APC scout-flagged? Type 127 Gun-APC (tracked) isn't used in the Israeli obat I think.

Otherwise thats about how I'd do it. Half ammo, 4-6 carry.

That would probably leave a bit more ammo than really would be available if carrying a combat-loaded halfsquad, but hey...

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

I think it could be in a formation for urban fight, as for US army M1A2s...

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

1.All my esstimates are from Collins page.He has them from Tanknet or other sites.Most of them are estimates of Paul Lakowski(Merkava estimates are his job)
2.As I said, Merkava Mk3 is complete new tank.It shares composition, engine in front,etc... but it has modular passive armor instead of spaced armor used in Mk1 and Mk2.I have compared composition of Addon armor from Leopard 2A5 becouse, Israelis cooperate with germans.Germany used their APFSDS for 105mm cannon (M111 = DM-23,M413 = DM-33 etc)Leopard(2A5) use perforated addon armor + composite inserts and rubber (there is quite good discusion about it on tanknet now - armor sientific section)Similar composition you can see at photos of Mk3B.
3.Front Glacis of M1 Abrams was really enough against threats in late 70s early 80s.Sloped plate was able to deflect most of soviet APFSDS, HEAT rounds were allways deflected as critical angle for HEAT is around 75°(Tanknet, Paul Lakowski).ALL Soviet APFSDS rounds from 1970-1989 were sheated - steel penetrator with tungsten or DU core.Becouse of that, they were not so effective against Spaced armor.First Soviet monocrystal APFSDS was BM-42.Last sheated US projectile was 105mm M735 (1978).
Critical angle for APFSDS rounds with L/D 10:1 to 15:1 is around 80°.Longer rods, better effectivity against sloped armor. Round with L/D 30:1-37:1 will be not deflected due to slope at all.
4.Merkava Mk4 will have an edge over M1A1 on long ranges.It can fire LAHAT top attack ATGM or use APFSDS rounds. Egyptian M1A1 dont have DU armor.They are in 450-500mm KE region, so they would not survive APFSDS hits (Most of modern APFSDS rounds could penetrate 500mm armor at 3000-4000m)

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

BTW, why Merkava in the game don't have 60mm mortar ? Are there some reason for it ?

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

I think it is not very effective in the main situation and is not only used as a direct weapon but also to launch smoke or 'lighters'....

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Backis said:What does "better design than Abrams for purposes that israel needs" actually mean?

Was it "kosher" or something.

Perhaps stating specific claims that actually mean something instead of making fuzzy mumbo-jumbo statements would help the discussion go forward? I've never stated that the Merkava is inferior regarding Israeli requirements, don't pretend I did...
And what on earth makes you think that the Merkava is a "defensive" tank? IDF tank doctrine is pretty agressive you know...

Lower sprint-speed doen't make it "defensive"... its not some sort of "land-battleship" that crawls at a slow walking speed...

Look at the shape of Merkava Mk1 turret.It is extremly sloped vertically and horizontally.It had good protection, but only from straight front. 30° front side hit will stand against much lower armor.Merkava turret is much smaller than M1 turret.Why? To make smallest target in hull down position. Tank primarilly used for attack will have armor much more resistant from 30° hits.Look at Soviet tanks, their turret had best protection at turret front corners, not in the center.It is simple, if you attack, you dont know from where fire come at you, so it is best to have more armor at front side of turet, to stop penetration, and give crew time to respond.(this was soviet lesson from ww2, where most destroyed tanks were penetrated in front side turret,becouse of german tankfire ambush tactics - best way to kill IS-2 with 75L48 was shoot at side turret armor).At the other side, if you are defending, you dont need strong front side armor, all fire will come at you from straight front.

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

About deflecting APFSDS rounds (50mm at 83° front glacis of Abrams)
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php...0291&st=20

Merkava mk1 and Mk2 estimates:
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php...0mk1&st=80

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Seems probable finally that an AFPSDS make a ricochet on a Merkava front hull... (see the figures)