The Merkava 4 MBT
 

I readed somewhere that it can take 8 mens into itself as transport, is that true?
Could it be represented in the game? (I think that's not because it's a MBT class, but...)

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

8 men?

Most unplausible, I'd say, until I read it too...

On this site, which I had always found reliable... Same info on Army Technology website, but same text too, so the source is the same.

When first reading the post, I had assumed it was merely 8 men including the crew, that is, 4 or 5 infantrymen in the back. But 3 stretchers tke more place.

I know the Merkava 3 is much larger than the previous ones, and the 4 is said to be even bigger. It also seems to field an autoloader, so maybe the crew is 3, giving more free room, but where does the ammo go? Or maybe they consider a special "field APC" variant where most of the gun rounds have been removed, and that acts like a heavy battle taxi among other tanks?

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

I just read over the website you forwarded, Plasma. The Merkava 4 does have a crew of 4, and it does have what I'd call a "semi-auto" loader. Each round is protected in it's own blast-proof box. The loader selects the round to be loaded and the boxes are on an electrically driven guide. The loader doesn't actually touch the round.

After looking at the pictures and the cut-away drawing, I've concluded that the Merkava 4 doesn't carry those 8 soldiers internally. I think they mean to say that it has room for 8 soldiers to ride on top. I think this is mentioned because it appears that the Merkava 4 doesn't have ERA, which wold be a first for an Israeli vehicle in a long time.

Sounds to me like an Israeli Defense Industry Marketing executive wrote up that information.

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Right, the crew is 4 men, I just ad been reading too fast. Anyway it says additionally...

8 soldiers riding on top looks few enough for a big beast like a Merk4 since even an Abrams can carry a whole inf squad (on the turret only), and I don't think the current Israeli "all-armor" doctrine would call for grunts riding on top of tanks.

Additionally, the "ride on top" hypothesis doesn't fit with the 3 litters that the text accounts for. The Command Group too seems unlikely to be plainly seated on the turret, exposed to any small arms fire.

So this may well be some marketer's brewup, if so I think there has already been heads rolling. I found no confirmation, and I cannot access the IMI website at:

http://www.imi-israel.com/

Edit:

This other article talks only about "enough space to carry a few fully armed infantrymen", which is not much difference from the previous Merkavas IIRC, although maybe now the infantrymen's space is more "official" so to speak.

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

BTW, since I know there was some misunderstanding in here about the Merkava variants designations.

For those interested better look here for the translations.
"BAZ" seems to be a convenient acronymous commercial designation while "Dor Dalet" stands roughly for "uparmored".
Much more precision on the link above.

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

well here's something intresting, all the Mekarva's in the game can carry 10 blokes.

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

1.Merkavas were never fitted with ERA armor. They had spaced plates, Mk3 has passive modular armor.
2.BAZ is acronym for Merkava Mk3 with improved Fire control.
3.Dor Dalet is uparmored Merkava Mk3 Baz
4.Merkava Mk4 can carry 4-6 men inside. They never really want carry infantry outside. It is suicide. every roud that hits a tank can kill all of them.
5.Merkavas needs their own class in game.Only front hull penetration could immobilize them (not rear hull), they carry troops inside, not outside, so they are allways under armor protection and will not take casaulties if tank is hit.(Gun APC class is not good due to upgrade problems, you will never be able to upgrade Merkava to other AFV, olny to APC and similar...)

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

What?
I don't understand that at all...

Made some research: Merkava is really heavy: 65T with a 1500Hp
(note that the abraham has also a 1500Hp with 70T, and cannot carry any men) and Merkava size it not so big, so two solutions:
- He cannot have so many people inside,
- He has not a good armor...
In SPMBT, his turret armor is bad: 80 I think but his hull armor is of 70 quite good...

I have made some experiment in order to see what his the best MBT in SPMBT:resultuts were very surprising, I'll repport on that tomorrow (+1 time line)

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Abrams has 70 imperial tons.63 metric tons.
Merkava Mk3 and Mk4 has 65 metric tons, 72 imperial tons.
Merkavas are much better protected than Abramses.

Merkava has engine in front hull compartment, so only front hull penetrations could immobilize it.Engine also adds to protection of the crew.

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Abrams can carry a full infantry squad, on the sides of the turret like any other non-ERA tank (ERA tends to add to the damage done to the nearby infantry when a tank is hit). Only the US doctrine don't call for that anymore, or at least the tactical requirements have shifted away from the idea.

On another subject, the recent Merkava versions were developped in an anti-insurrection warfare context. Hence the somewhat light steel armor level, compensated by a huge anti-HEAT armouring.

What JaM meant about the engine, Loktarr, was that to immobilise a Merkava with a motor kill, you have to hit the front of the chassis instead of the rear as for most tanks.

Anyway I don't remember seeing many motor kills in the game. Many front hull or rear hull hits alike were either damaging or catastrophic, and mobility kills were generally achieved by blowing a track (track or side hull hit).

BTW, JaM, you should really have a look at the page I posted above about abbreviations, this explains what Dor Dalet and Baz are all about, what these version names are all about, and for instance how the "dor dalet" name is never used IRL.
I trust the guy writing this on account of his speaking and translating Hebrew while I can't!

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Saying that the Merk can "only be immobilized by hits to the front" is about as correct a statement that "Leopard 2 can only be immobilized by hits to the rear", ie not at all. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

That the Merk 4 should have significantly better protection in all aspects is rather speculation, and I consider "much" better being very unlikely. It also is a to general a statement. Better protected under what circumstances and against what threats?

My guess is that compared to the M1A2 Abrams the Merk 4 has better all aspect protection against man-portable weapons (enhanced survivability during FIBUA) while being slightly inferior frontally (pretty much as depicted in the game actually).

Although a lot of the evaluation hangs on how large the internal volume of the Merk 4 is, space to carry 8 dudes with tactical gear hints that it has a lot of volume to cover, thus perhaps being forced to overall spread that extra armour mass a bit thin.

As stated the Merk can carry infantry internally, but do not have space to do so unless stowage is reduced. Turning it into an 8-guy apc would most likely leave you with only the ammunition carried in the autolader and coax-bin but no reloads. The capability is intended rather for "special applications", and not a "standard" capability always available.


@ Loktarr

Abrams, not Abrahams. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Note that there is as JaM states a substantial difference between Imperial and Metric tons. The Merk 4 is heavier than the M1A2 Abrams just as he wrote.


I actually dislike capability for infantry riding outside modern MBT's at all. F e, the Abrams will tend to roast those sitting on its rear deck with the turbine exhaust when not doing what just about all other MBT do, toss them off by driving really fast over rough terrain or knock them of when swiveling the turret...

MBT's are NOT made to carry troops on the outside like some T-34 with hand-rails for desantniki welded onto it.

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

They are not meant to, but they can. You still find that kind of things on North-Korean propaganda pics. Admittedly not hte best source nor reference, but there you go...

Some time ago I found in an old US Army field manual the way the infantrymen were meant to be hitching on tanks (it was clearly stated they were to get down as soon as enemy presence was expected), and, as you said, Backis, on an Abrams the guys are all seated on the turret rigs, hanging on the baskets, as opposed to the M60 tank where some could ride on the back. Sitting on the turret avoids turbine heat and gunbarrel shocks problems, but you surely sacrifice commander vision and probably turret mobility.

The whole idea looks insane as soon as combat is involved, but between two fire zones a tank can be just another battle taxi as soon as you are pretty sure of your rear area.

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Sorry, I'll write M1A2, so no problems...

I didn't know but if that's efficient in street fight when a poor RPG can immobilise a standard MBT, in a "normal" war, I would not be very happy of having a motor in front of me...
You said it incrases the crew protection... Maybe, but with so few space in the front for both armor and motor, the anti-Sabot armor or whatever munition that kind, should be not so high in the game.
That's not in contradiction with a high anti-heat armor (i.e: BTW, the Leclerc has the best anti-heat armor in the game because it has new generation armor and in the same time, his anti-sabot armor is not so good, because the only things that counts his the number of centimeters steel you place between the sabot and the crew, and for that, Leopard and M1A2 are the best)

Other point, in the game, Merkava has a stabilizator of 6 and a fire control of 54, because of the from http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/

I have no idea of wath have got M1A2 SEP,Challenger and Leopard2A6-EX but I know for sure that since 1998, the Leclerc (tranche 5) system is (or seems to be) at least so good:

and
Has anybody an idea of the efficiency of those systems or any information about the others MBTs systems?

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

The point of having the motor in the front part of the hull is that a tank motor is a thick chunk of steel, and has to be penetrated too for the round to reach both crew and ammo.
In a pure survivablity point of view (that of Eng. Israel Tal, designer of the Merkava), when your tank is hit, no matter what happens to the tank as long as the crew gets out alice. Historically Israel has had enough tanks soon enough, but never enough experienced crewmen to waste them. On the other hand, no one has.

Front engine has been considered by just about everyone, France not the last, but was generally forgotten for various reasons, lately because of interferences between motor heat and the thermal imager. It IS a "normal war", i.e. Cold War concept, since it puts all the metal mass on the frontal sector. You have to understand that what is utmost important in a tank is its crew. A motor and a whole tank can be rebuilt. Crews can't.

As for FC systems, you will notice that the Leclerc has as much advanced FC rating as other tanks (50), but a higher RFO, which can be considered to account for both the advanced targetting system (which by now also Merkavas, Abrams and Japanese Type-90 have IIRC) and the autoloader.

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Well, what modern MBT do NK really have, eh? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

T-54/55, T-62 and their Chinese clones are really more "proto-MBT" medium tanks. Both are also slow enough to allow crunchies to hang on reasonably secure when taking it careful.

I'd be interested in that manual, how old is it btw?

In the military there is of course a manual for all manner of activities, no matter how impractical.

I however seriously doubt wether this was regarding tactical use of a tank desant, but rather think its about more operational movement.

If an Abrams carried desants it would have to drive very slow, it couldn't traverse the turret effectively nor do I think firing the main gun would be popular due to pressure effects even if you have a source stating otherwise. I'd need to see that first hand myself.

All crunchies better be wearing hearing aids too... deaf people loose a lot of situational awareness. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

In short, I don't believe it would be possible to fight the tank effectively with riders.

The thing is, giving them the carry capacity will give the tank the capacity to fight a full efficiency, drive at full speed through any terrain while carrying those troops.

I understand that this is a compromise, and a compromise is needed, and that this is just not the one that I would prefer.

I just have a differing opinion as to the game designers, live with it. I have to. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

It's IMO ok to let older tanks such as the T-55, T-62, M48, M60 and Centurion to name a few to carry infantry, but I'd draw the line at modern fast MBT where you'd have to glue yourself on to stay put.

As soon as I see a half-dozen guys riding around on an Abrams in Iraq I'll stop whining. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

I was a Challenger 2 commander and absolutely loved that tank it was an extremely effective battle tank and just like the leclerc its fire control system enabled it to engage slow flying aircraft and vehicles on the move, these techniques are taught as standard to RAC crewmen. I believe that all the modern MBTs Leclerc, Leo 2A6, M1A2, etc are basically much the same with some slight differences not enough to make a major impact on the battlefield. In the end it comes down to the experience and skill of the crews. I like the Merkava design but it was built with a different doctrine than those in europe and the US. The europeans designed theirs for large scale mechanised warfare across open planes and woodland, having learnt the hard way about using tanks in urban environments, the isrealies seem to have started out with the same principle but as their battlefield changed to a more urban insurgengy type theatre so has their merkava designs and upgrades. The latest version of the merkava now has sniper slits in the rear compartment enableing sniper teams to fire from under armour.

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Are you sure about that? Which latest version BTW? Mk 3-something or Mk 4, or something else?

There is also a heavy APC called Namera which derives from the Merkava body, so this may be the strange "tank APC" confusing us all here: as clue, I found this line on the Namera page from the Israeli Weapons website:Rings a bell, eh? Future Merkava project, carrying 8 troopers plus the crew...
Maybe someone really screwed their news report up!

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

I think the same, in fact from what happened in history, I would go further and say that the MBTs quality would not decide of the war...
BTW, in 1940, France has got B1 tank who where virtualy impossible to kill from german tanks... In fact there was a little point where german gunners could penetrate the tank, and you know what happened to France in 1940...
other date, 1944, battle in Normandy, sherman where a pure **** in comparison with Panthers, and allied did win: half of the german tanks destroyed in Normandy where not from allies but from breakdowns and fuel missings...

I tried an experiment in order to determinate which was the best MBT in SPMBT, the results are on the After Combat Repport section, but when trying it in areal battle, the tank type doesn't matter, and every tank can kill other tanks...
That's true, and I am not a specialist in tank armor, in fact determining tanks qualities when they didn't fight each other is really hard... So has proven by WW2, the best tank is the one who never has breakdowns
Only one point wrong:
You seem to ignore that the ROF is only used in SP for determination of ROF for indirect arty fire, so it' totally useless in the case of a MBT, for which the ROF is only determinated by the experience of the crew...

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Plasma: The Merkava Mk3 & Mk4 LIC a speciallised modification for urban warfare
http://www.defense-update.com/produc...erkava-lic.htm

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Backis:
1.I was not talking about reality,My priority is make OOB as much accurate as it gets. In SP game rear hit often immobilize target.(side hits too, but not as often,side hits make more kills than rear hits).Merkavas in game if hit in rear are immobilized, and this is not real.
2. It is hard to tell witch tank is better armored. Merkavas had very vell sloped turret so they are much better protected than M1A2 from front, but will be weaker from 30° than M1A2. I saw some estimates Paul Lakowski posted not so long ago, and he stated that Merkava Mk2 had front turret armor 760mm (+-200mm due to horizontal and vertical sloping) Mk3 Dor Dalet would be in 900+ region and Mk4 around 1000mm+
against kinetic energy.Mk3 and Mk4 has modular armor with most modern passive armor.
M1 Abrams was designed in 1970"s, Front hull armor is quite weak against modern APFSDS rounds (upper front hull is 50-70mm at 83degrees= 550-600mm effective protection) This is not so hard target for new APFSDS rounds capable penetrating 800mm+ at 2000m (Chinesse 125mm DU rounds, etc...)

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

I think that this rear door must be a really good to fire at for a RPG bearer, it musst be quite unarmored...

I'm not a specialist but the turret seems to be a good "shell trap", I mean when a shell did hit the tank on the top hull or end of the turret, he can slide and hit at the jointing point of the turret and the hull. That's not good, german had this problem with the Panther A during WW2 and added in D a little steel protection over the hull. This is the same problem with Leopard, but Challenger and M1A2 don't have this problem...

just an edit for Jam:
go there to see the M1A2 SEP armor:
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm
it is given tree times depending on the year and version...

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Mmh, you seem to be right, I don't know why I thought the Leclerc actually had more shots than the Abrams. What disturbs me though is that I just tested the thing, but I was unable to change the ROF ratio of my tanks... Edited a test scenario, deployed some tanks, edtied their data to have a range of ROF values with constant M/E, but when testing the scenario all my Abrams were back at ROF=6. Am I missing something or have I done something wrong?

Anyway I remind reading in some help file that the actual number of shots was related to a ROF/warhead size ratio. Is that only for artillery? If so, how can there be some discrimination among similar weapons with actually different ROFs IRL?

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Merkava is not an APC, it is capable carry some soldiers, but not whole squad. Rear comparment was suposed to provide transport capability for crews from destroyed own tanks.

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Here are the formulas for ROF:
Shots= Exp/(Supression+20)*100/90
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

I FOUND IT: THE SITE WHICH WAS USED BY DON AND ANDY TO DO THE GAME!!! :
http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm
everything ids here for MBT stats

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by JaM

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Loktarr, believe you me, if IMI has designed this Merkava version hoping it will be fielded by Tsahal, they have made a very thick door indeed. Besides, the door is quite narrow, and stacked between two huge armored baskets which are definitely added on top of the armor, so if a projectile gets a grazing hit on the edge of the door it is bound to trip into the REAL armour and bounce into the basket, hurting no one (except for the mechanics, of course).

Look at pitures of the Namera APC, you will see how narrow is this rear "shell trap". Apparently only one man can come on/off at a time, even on the APC version.

On another matter, the Abrams as a pretty good shell trap under the gunbarrel too. It IS very small but opens right onto the turret ring. I don't know how much armor there is suposed to be at this point, where the barrel has to move into for positive angles.

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

You was faster than me... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Got it, just dug out the reference.

The book is FM 7-8 "Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad", 04/22/1992, chapter2, section 2-47 "riding on armored vehicles".

I DLed it long ago from the Army library website, which has much changed since, so I don't know if you can still get it from there.

I enclose the two pics showing riding positions on M60 and Abrams.

Edit: In this very section it is said: "The M1 tank is NOT designed to carry riders easily." !

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

I was speaking of an intifada RPG not of a US M1A2 firing at a range of 5000m in the rear door of a Merkava...
For the "shell trap", I was speaking of the whole turret not of the rear door, has you said it every tank has some very weak points, but that's not the same as the "shell trap". Just imagine what will do a shell hiting on the upper hull that slides...
Edit:
seen some picture, may admit the M1 has a very good shell trap too..

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

FYI to all......

The US Army brought back infantry on tank tactics for Iraqi Freedom. A brigade of 101st troopers were attached to the 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division. During the assault through the Karbala Gap, fireteams (4 soldiers) were assigned to each tank. The terrain was suburban, no tall buildings, but enough infrastructure to be concerned. Each soldier lay prone at the tank's corners, behind sandbags. The TC and Loader were on their MGs, the gunner used the coax in a limited front field of attack.

Someone mentioned it would be suicide for the infantry if someone with an RPG struck or an MBT was encountered. Well...... yes. You only use these tactics when the chance of an encounter with enemy MBTs is very low. As far as RPGs, the tanks carry Infantry to add 360 degree immediate response fire, and RPG launchers show up like a sore thumb on TI sites.

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

I didn't understand, could the turret move or not?

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Yes the turret could move, but they limited the movement to a 20-30 degree angle or so. It was a neat trick, I was suprised to see it done. As far as I knew, the Army had not been practicing that sort of thing. Then again, it's not too hard to grab some sandbags and hang-on.

I wonder if this was done in response to the heavy helo casualties the US took when they 1st entered the Karbala Gap? An air assault landing was out of the question to they found other ways to make the 101st mobile?

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Well the tanks needed inf support. The 101 has a lot of inf.

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Fair enough...

But to reach reasonable consensus on what is accurate representaion in the game, we must reach reasonable consensus on what interpretation of reality thats supposed to be represented in the first place, no?

I'd say that a vast majority of "real" MK's are track related rather than engine related, I'd hold the designs difference due to front or rear mounted engines as pretty much irrelevant to in-game handling of mobility damage.

I'd play around with the games handling of the survivability trait instead.

Oh, the Merkava entered service in 1979, the M1 Abrams in 1980, calling the Abrams "inferior by age" is bit off... Eventhough the IV is mightily improved it shares layout with earlier marks and isn't "magically" better. Armour mass is increased, but it still need to be more distributed due to the percieved need to have better allround protection.

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

***-protection ain't that hot for any MBT, if there is a door there or not, you're pretty much toast if you let them shoot you up the rear. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Long-rod penetrators doesn't really richochet, its not really a problem having "shot traps" against APFSDS.

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

You got it in digital format?

Would you be interested in sharing?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

ulven@chello.se

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Merkava Mk3 is complete new tank.But even Merkava Mk1 had better design than Abrams for purposes that israel needs.Abrams is grat tank for WW3 war, but it is not as good as merkava in golan or sinai.Both tanks were build with experience from 1973 Yom Kippur war in mind, but M1 Abrams was much more attack tank and Merkava was suposed to defend.M1 has superior mobility, same firepower and standard protection against KE and good against CE. Merkava Mk1 had very good frontal protection (front turret was quite strong,unpenetrable for late 70s early 80s APFSDS direct hit).Engine in front made Front hull unpenetrable for all CE weapons of late 70s and early 80s,due to compromising mobility.
Merkava Mk4 has most modern passive armor.If you look at Leopard 2A6 front turret addon armor rised protection from 650-700mm KE to 950-1100mm KE.But this layout is 10 years old(2A5)Merkava mk4 has layout from year 2000, so there must be adleast minor improvement in technology.
Biggest weakness of Abrams (in early 80s it wasnt weakness but strongpoint...) is glacis armor. 83° degree is enogh for deflecting all non-precise HEAT warheads and sheated APFSDS rounds, but it is not enough now. Most ATGMs have not problems with it.Even RPG-29 could easily penetrate it.All modern APFSDS will penetrate it from quite great range (BM-42M could do 600mm at 2000m...)
Merkava Mk4 could face Egyptian M1A1 tanks armed with KEW-A1 APFSDS (590mm at 2000m)or new KEW-A2 (660mm at 2000m), so its front hull and turret could handle it. Autotracker and Firecontrol system gives quite good bonus against M1A1.(Same thing works against Jordanian Challengers)

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

I don't know, because I readed that during WW2 the shell who does 'ricochet' where the german tungstene penetrators, against flat inclinated armors...
Are you sure about what you said?

Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
 

Nobody used APFSDS in WW2. Closest thing was spin-stabilized APDS, which couldn't be stabilized at nearly the same L/D ratio.

I applied an oversimplified absolute, which is always a bad idea...

Complaining about JaM doing just this and then doing it myself is a sign of dumbarseness, so I'd better start to think about what the hell I'm writing... especially in areas where I'm barely a semi-enlightened amateur, if that... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Sorry, I only meant to say that I think the problem I responded to isn't that big or relevant. A lot of engineers with fancy titles designing armour does seem to believe that creating shot-traps isn't a big deal, I don't think they're just stupid (I reserve that comment for myself) and "forgot" about it. Long-rod penetrator structural failure/breakup will probably occur before it being deflected so much it will be a threat to the deck hull or turret ring, but most likely it will be embedded in the front turret armour.

However, I'll indulge myself and writing down what I've come to believe so far...

The inertial stability of high length to diameter (L/D) ratio penetrators makes ricochet yaw practically irrelevant when applying the ricochet effect on armour penetration unless we're talking very extreme angles. At lower angles the effect will be to small to significantly affect the penetrator. This is of course varied relative to the exact constitution of penetrator and armour material.

Still, long-rods most likely will not bounce off, and the armour need to be strong enough not to simply be overmatched.

So, simplified and unabsolute, I think that unless at extreme angles, LOS increase by angled armour will likely be more relevant to protection against long-rods than angle induced ricochet.

Angle-induced yaw short of a ricochet is probably still desirable though, since the increased stress put on the penetrator may cause it to fail structurally and break up.

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)