Quote:
JaM said:
Merkava Mk3 is complete new tank.
|
Do you even read my posts before tossing repetitions in my face? I've already been over that "point"...
Quote:
Backis said: 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.
|
Its still adherent to the original Merkava concept and layout, keeping both the strengths and vices of same, which is relevant to remeber when appraising it.
However, you jumping back and forth between generationally different models of the comparative families making absolute statements trying to make "points" isn't.
And your debating technique is absolutely enervating, stop making ridiculous absolutist claims all the time!
Quote:
JaM said: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.
|
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...
Quote:
JaM said: 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).
|
Whoopie, more "absolute" statements...
The Merkava family are designed to be capable of good mobility on rugged and rocky terrain. USMC M1A1 has had trouble keeping up in rocky and hilly terrain f e.
Ergo, the absolute claim that the "M1 has superior mobility" is false in this case.
Take up the "standard protection" relative to the Abrams with the Abrams-fans... you're in for a flame-fest there...
The Abrams, especially M1A1HA and onwards are very well protected vehicles, at least over the frontal arc.
Quote:
Engine in front made Front hull unpenetrable for all CE weapons of late 70s and early 80s, due to compromising mobility.
|
Hint; If the penetrator gets through to the engine, the tank
is penetrated...
The engine isn't
armour, and its placement is a
crew survivability trait. Chances are the tank will be on fire after a hit to the engine. Even though the engine compartement is separated from the fighting compartement (on which modern tank isn't it?), smoke and heat will blind it. Fire or not, if the engine is gone, the tank is not really fightable any more. Hand-cranking the turret won't leave it very combat effective f e... laser-ranging on battery power can be sustained for how loing and so on... not to mention that they are a sitting duck which the enemy has already ranged in. Best opportunity is to leave the tank and scarper before more nasty stuff comes your way. Quite dumb sticking around during those circumstances on the target range after all that trouble has been gone through to let the crew survive in the first place...
Shooting out the engine is an effective way to get a mission kill.
Quote:
JaM said: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.
|
Even if you actually knew exactly how the armour matrix of the Merkava 4 was composed (I sorta gather that you
don't), you'd still not know how it compares to that on other tanks were...
Or would the composite armour I can go out and make in my own garage by hitherto unknwon manufacturing techniques and for armour used materials, thereby being newer and "more modern" automatically be better than anything else in the world?
Hate to rain on your parade JaM, but superior MerkIV armour is merely your assumption... It might be better, it might be worse, most likely its roughly equal...
Protection levels quoted are also either your own (you don't give references) or other peoples guesstimates, not
actual values, so stop stating them as such. At
best they are good guesses.
I wasn't debating "estimates of X mm of RHA at Y degrees of angle" here, I was talking about general armour layout and possible compromised over weight distribution necessities, you seem to need to defend your fav tank by quoting loose numbers...
Quote:
JaM said:Biggest weakness of Abrams (in early 80s it wasnt weakness but strongpoint...) is glacis armor.
|
Huh? The glacis plate (which is a very small part of the frontal target profile btw) was always a compromise, not a "strongpoint"...
And why don't you give the glacis thickness of the Merkava while you're at it?
Could it be that you're referring to the M1A2 glacis-plate as a vulnerability while at the same time not knowing anything about that aspect of the Merkava's?
Quote:
JaM said: 83° degree is enogh for deflecting all non-precise HEAT warheads
|
No its not.
The acute angle can allow for warhead misfire on older fuzes (sort of the same thing thats behind the slat armour concept) by the warhead being deteriorated by damage before being detonated. LOS increase of plate thickness is the main effect on functioning HEAT penetrator streams.
Or are you just mixing up "deflect" and "protect" here?
Quote:
JaM said:and sheated APFSDS rounds, but it is not enough now.
|
Uh... what do you mean with "sheated APFSDS"?
Quote:
JaM said: 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...)
|
Most ATGM's will not hit the glacis plate...
Exactly how much do you know a BM-42M will penetrate when the armour is angled at 80+ degrees?
Quote:
JaM said: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)
|
Gee, nice assumption that the Merkava will hit the golden spot every time... and somehow the Merkava IV's FCS makes its armour superior too...
And again you are just dropping numbers you've either ripped from the internet or somebodys book, or even made up yourself. You leave no references to anything and state guesstimates as fact.
All I gather from this discussion is that you're behaving as a Merkava fanboy...
You automatically choose to interpret every figure and rumour you come across in a way to reinforce you own assumption of Merkava supremacy... including making flawed comparisons always assuming best case scenario four you favourite and worst case for the comparison... then you abuse topic drift to change the subject all the time...
Where did I notice you doing that before, eh...
Re: The Merkava 4 MBT
Linear Mode
