The Merkava 4 MBT

[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

[loktarr]

Seems probable finally that an AFPSDS make a ricochet on a Merkava front hull... (see the figures)

[JaM]

It will not ricochet.It will deflect it.Deflected APFSDS penetrators broke up after impact.They penetrate armor due to concentration of kinetic energy to a small square of armor.If they are deflected they hit armor with body, not with tip, so they broke.

[Backis]

JaM said:
...

As I stated in my PM to you (and you seemed to be agreeing with), we'd better do this in PM...

[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...

[JaM]

Yes in game we could do very little to simulate this.First SP2 had for example all armor values stated for 30° protection, butthis at the other side punnish all differently constructed tanks as Merkava. Maybe lowered side armor is the way...

As i said, my english is not pefect, so i have tendency to ovesimlify things.Sorry for that.

[serg3d]

About Merkaca turret - does not forward sloped turret kinde of contradict urban combat/LIC concept ? Is that the legacy problem only ? IDF pdie themself beeng pioneer tank urban combat tactic...

[JaM]

That is why they uparmored Mk3B and Mk2B with 4.th generation passive armor (Dor Dalet versions). Merkava Mk4 has new turret, with much better side protection than early models.