The Merkava 4 MBT

[serg3d]

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...

[Backis]

serg3d said:
Returning to the original question:

Thank you.

serg3d said: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...

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...

[loktarr]

How about making Merkava 4 recon APC

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

[JaM]

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)

[serg3d]

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

[loktarr]

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'....

[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.

[JaM]

About deflecting APFSDS rounds (50mm at 83° front glacis of Abrams)
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php...ic=10291&st=20

Merkava mk1 and Mk2 estimates:
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php...va%20mk1&st=80

[Backis]

JaM said:
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.

Thank you.

I don't disagree with this, just that it shouldn't be interpreted as a "general" superiority in protection as you stated early on.

What you yourself here has stated is that the Abrams general turret armour layout (as opposed to difference induced by material) gives better coverage against emerging threats within a larger area of angle than the Merkava turret armour layout does, whose armour layout in its turn is optimised and better for a more narrow angle of frontal threat.

Both are choices and compromises superior as well as inferior to each other depending on the tactical situation.

Unfortunately the SP engine cannot handle this since the "arc" angles cannot be varied between models, forcing "compromised" values.

Comparing a situation which favour either design over another don't give a reasonable interpretation of capability.

This is why I opposed the "Merkavas are much better protected than Abrams" claim, which is true under some circumstances but not others.

Why didn't I just write that to begin with?

And I do apologize to you for repeatedly getting aggressive towards you JaM, I have no idea why I've gotten this way, but I'll work on stopping it...