[JaM]

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.