The Merkava 4 MBT

[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.

[loktarr]

Abrams, not Abrahams.

Sorry, I'll write M1A2, so no problems...

Merkava has engine in front hull compartment, so only front hull penetrations could immobilize it.Engine also adds to protection of the crew.

I didn't know but if that's efficient in street fight when a poor RPG can immobilise a standard MBT, in a "normal" war, I would not be very happy of having a motor in front of me...
You said it incrases the crew protection... Maybe, but with so few space in the front for both armor and motor, the anti-Sabot armor or whatever munition that kind, should be not so high in the game.
That's not in contradiction with a high anti-heat armor (i.e: BTW, the Leclerc has the best anti-heat armor in the game because it has new generation armor and in the same time, his anti-sabot armor is not so good, because the only things that counts his the number of centimeters steel you place between the sabot and the crew, and for that, Leopard and M1A2 are the best)

Other point, in the game, Merkava has a stabilizator of 6 and a fire control of 54, because of the

The new fire control system, developed by El Op, includes very advanced features including the capability to acquire and lock onto moving targets, even airborne helicopters, while the tank itself is on the move.

from http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/

I have no idea of wath have got M1A2 SEP,Challenger and Leopard2A6-EX but I know for sure that since 1998, the Leclerc (tranche 5) system is (or seems to be) at least so good:

The gun, which fires APFSD and HEAT rounds, has a firing rate of 12 rounds/minute. The aiming system is entirely electrical for improved acceleration.The tank has an automatic loading system, which allows cross-country fire-on-the-move against mobile targets.

and

The digital fire control system allows the gunner or commander to select six different targets to be engaged in just over 30 seconds. The system's digital computer allows realtime treatment of data from the tank's sensors and sights.The gunner's stabilised sight is SAVAN 20 from Safran, which contains a three-field-of-view thermal imager.

Has anybody an idea of the efficiency of those systems or any information about the others MBTs systems?

[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.

[Backis]

PlasmaKrab said:
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...

Well, what modern MBT do NK really have, eh?

T-54/55, T-62 and their Chinese clones are really more "proto-MBT" medium tanks. Both are also slow enough to allow crunchies to hang on reasonably secure when taking it careful.

PlasmaKrab said: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.

I'd be interested in that manual, how old is it btw?

In the military there is of course a manual for all manner of activities, no matter how impractical.

I however seriously doubt wether this was regarding tactical use of a tank desant, but rather think its about more operational movement.

If an Abrams carried desants it would have to drive very slow, it couldn't traverse the turret effectively nor do I think firing the main gun would be popular due to pressure effects even if you have a source stating otherwise. I'd need to see that first hand myself.

All crunchies better be wearing hearing aids too... deaf people loose a lot of situational awareness.

In short, I don't believe it would be possible to fight the tank effectively with riders.

PlasmaKrab said: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.

The thing is, giving them the carry capacity will give the tank the capacity to fight a full efficiency, drive at full speed through any terrain while carrying those troops.

I understand that this is a compromise, and a compromise is needed, and that this is just not the one that I would prefer.

I just have a differing opinion as to the game designers, live with it. I have to.

It's IMO ok to let older tanks such as the T-55, T-62, M48, M60 and Centurion to name a few to carry infantry, but I'd draw the line at modern fast MBT where you'd have to glue yourself on to stay put.

As soon as I see a half-dozen guys riding around on an Abrams in Iraq I'll stop whining.

[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...)