The Merkava 4 MBT

[PlasmaKrab]

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.

[cusbut]

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.

[PlasmaKrab]

The latest version of the merkava now has sniper slits in the rear compartment enableing sniper teams to fire from under armour.

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:

It is estimated that a troop of around 8 men can be carried, not counting the crew of three (there will also be a gunner for the OWS).

Rings a bell, eh? Future Merkava project, carrying 8 troopers plus the crew...
Maybe someone really screwed their news report up!

[loktarr]

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.

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...

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.

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 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.

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...

[cusbut]

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

[JaM]

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...)

[JaM]

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.

[JaM]

Post deleted by JaM

[Backis]

JaM said:
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.

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.

[JaM]

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)