The Merkava 4 MBT

[PlasmaKrab]

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.

[PlasmaKrab]

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.

[Listy]

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

[JaM]

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...)

[loktarr]

Only front hull penetration could immobilize them (not rear hull)

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)

[JaM]

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.

[PlasmaKrab]

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!

[Backis]

JaM said:
Merkavas are much better protected than Abramses

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.

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.

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.

[PlasmaKrab]

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.

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.