Merkava

[carman1877]

What do you think of the Merkava tank? all models. it was rated 4 on a military show of top ten tanks.

what what you rank it by these requirements?

firepower-
armor-
manuverability-
and design-

it even has a trap door in the back were troops can get in and out.

Got any pics.

 

[Waylander]

It's good...

Do you have maybe an own opionion on that topic?
Note that there is also a big difference between the different Mrks as well as even within a specific model.

As for pics, google and, who would have thought, the gallery on this nice site is your friend or are you searching for something special?

 

[Wooki]

It's good...

Do you have maybe an own opionion on that topic?
Note that there is also a big difference between the different Mrks as well as even within a specific model.

As for pics, google and, who would have thought, the gallery on this nice site is your friend or are you searching for something special?

Speaking of good, has the new MTU 890 series finished testing yet Waylander? If you had one of those in the Merkava 4, you might be able to use the weight savings into putting some real armor on the back, eh?

cheers

w

 

[Waylander]

At least the 800kw version for the Puma seems ready to go don't ask me for the other versions.

IMHO getting additional fuel into a tank, more storage room into an IFV or a well protected underarmor APU might be more interesting than some additional armor.

In the end one can only benefit from all the pros of a new MTU 890 if one integrates it into a new design right from the start.
Putting it into an existing design is going to give you some more space and weight savings but it might be more difficult to effectively use this extra space.

 

[Wooki]

At least the 800kw version for the Puma seems ready to go don't ask me for the other versions.

IMHO getting additional fuel into a tank, more storage room into an IFV or a well protected underarmor APU might be more interesting than some additional armor.

That is because you were spoiled with good all round protection. The back door on the merkava is problematic in certain combat envrionments.

cheers

w

 

[Waylander]

He he.

But the backdoor also has alot of usefull advantages.
Being able to get wounded crewmembers out and fresh ammo into the tank without needing to expose anybody while in a defensive position is something the Israelis learned to love the hard way on the Golan heights.

Evacuating wounded personal under heavy armor protection as well as inserting a small squad if needed is also something which can be usefull during certain situations.

The Merks seem to have worked reasonably well during the last Lebanon adventure when one forgets the awfull way in which they were employed (lack of intel, arty and infantry support).

Ok, I have seen pictures of some being blown apart from hits in the back but alot of them seemed to have survivded multiple hits by ATWs and ATGMs on the front and sides.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Speaking of good, has the new MTU 890 series finished testing yet Waylander? If you had one of those in the Merkava 4, you might be able to use the weight savings into putting some real armor on the back, eh?

What's wrong with the armour of the rear end of a Merkava? Its far higher than an M1 tank... While any door will compromise protection to some degree you do need them to be able to get in and out. However considering the base armour level is way higher than the Level 3/4 of the M1 at the rear end its not much of a comparative compromise.

The area for weight savings in the Merkava is the suspension. Some 16 tonnes for the HHS spring units. The Israelis have looked at hydrogas for the future but are in no rush as the current arrangement contributes to protection. Sideon at the low level of the hull (below the skirts) the Merkava is far better protected than any other tank.

 

[kato]

Being able to get wounded crewmembers out and fresh ammo into the tank

How do you reload a Leo 2 anyway since they deleted the reloading hatches in A2 or A3? Through crew hatches only?

inserting a small squad if needed

I think most infantry would prefer a IFV in such a situation. Unless it's raining 40x53 HEDP or something like that. Primarily because of the (supposedly) far better crew-squad interaction and coordination though.

What's wrong with the armour of the rear end of a Merkava? Its far higher than an M1 tank...

I can think of a number of issues, both pro and contra. Would involve variables such as whether the armour used in a particular tank can partially dissipate/fraction/redirect HEAT jets, whether/what splinter liner is used and applicable, how internal structure would affect any penetrating matter, and finally where crew and in particular ammunition are placed in regard to the armour face we're talking about. Don't think that should be discussed here though for obvious reasons.

 

[Wooki]

What's wrong with the armour of the rear end of a Merkava? Its far higher than an M1 tank... While any door will compromise protection to some degree you do need them to be able to get in and out. However considering the base armour level is way higher than the Level 3/4 of the M1 at the rear end its not much of a comparative compromise.

The M1 has an engine in the back just as the Merkava has an engine in the front. The Merkava will always be fighting a protection deficit to protect the rear and its why the US Army is OK with the M1 as is.

Bottom line the Merkava was designed for tank on tank and is probably the best configuration to date for that. The M1, Leo 2 and Chally (by chance) are better suited to warfare where attacks can come fom any direction.

cheers

w

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The M1 has an engine in the back just as the Merkava has an engine in the front. The Merkava will always be fighting a protection deficit to protect the rear and its why the US Army is OK with the M1 as is.

Bottom line the Merkava was designed for tank on tank and is probably the best configuration to date for that. The M1, Leo 2 and Chally (by chance) are better suited to warfare where attacks can come fom any direction.

Ohh Weas... ahh I mean Wooki...

The difference is:

Merkava: frontal protection: thick armour + power pack, rear protection: medium armour
M1, Leo 2, CR2: frontal protection: thick armour, rear protection: thin armour + power pack

Against major threats (ATGM, 105-125mm KE) the M1, Leo 2 and CR2 have better rear protection for the crew but at the cost of higher vulnerability of the powerpack to minor threats. This is why so many M1s have been knocked out in Iraq - because their power packs have been disabled by RPG-7s. You can't knock out a Merkava front mounted powerpack with an RPG-7. You also can't penetrate the rear of a Merkava with an RPG-7.

Since the rear arc is not a major threat zone for major, ie conventional threats (ATGM, 105-125mm KE) which tank has a protection deficit? The Merkava also has other features positioned at the rear of the tank to absorb penetration effects before it reaches the crew. In the case of Mk3, Mk4 this includes most of the fuel and the ammunition which is stored in fire-blast proof containers that make for a very effective extra layer of resistance.

The frontline standard Mk2 and Mk3 and the Mk4 also have far higher side armour on their hulls and turrets than the M1, Leo 2 and CR2. Far higher.

 

[carman1877]

The merkava has all things such as engine, ammo (in cook off proof containers), and even fuel around the tank to protect the crew. the fuel is located between the outer snd inner hulls. this protects against HEAT rounds. I seen a movie of a Merkava taking several RPG hits.

 

[Chrom]

This is why so many M1s have been knocked out in Iraq - because their power packs have been disabled by RPG-7s. You can't knock out a Merkava front mounted powerpack with an RPG-7. You also can't penetrate the rear of a Merkava with an RPG-7.

May be 30-years old broken Chinese RPG wouldnt penetrate Merkava's rear, but vanilla 70x vintage USSR RPG-7 or ATGM will do it for sure. Not even speak about later models...

 

[carman1877]

"This is why so many M1s have been knocked out in Iraq - because their power packs have been disabled by RPG-7s. You can't knock out a Merkava front mounted powerpack with an RPG-7. You also can't penetrate the rear of a Merkava with an RPG-7."

this is true I seen a video of RPG hits, most likely RPG 7s, on a merkava that didnt disablwe its rear. the abrams m1a2 TUSK now has engine armor so thats helps it.

 

[Wooki]

Ohh Weas... ahh I mean Wooki...

The difference is:

Merkava: frontal protection: thick armour + power pack, rear protection: medium armour
M1, Leo 2, CR2: frontal protection: thick armour, rear protection: thin armour + power pack

Against major threats (ATGM, 105-125mm KE) the M1, Leo 2 and CR2 have better rear protection for the crew but at the cost of higher vulnerability of the powerpack to minor threats. This is why so many M1s have been knocked out in Iraq - because their power packs have been disabled by RPG-7s. You can't knock out a Merkava front mounted powerpack with an RPG-7. You also can't penetrate the rear of a Merkava with an RPG-7.

Since the rear arc is not a major threat zone for major, ie conventional threats (ATGM, 105-125mm KE) which tank has a protection deficit? The Merkava also has other features positioned at the rear of the tank to absorb penetration effects before it reaches the crew. In the case of Mk3, Mk4 this includes most of the fuel and the ammunition which is stored in fire-blast proof containers that make for a very effective extra layer of resistance.

The frontline standard Mk2 and Mk3 and the Mk4 also have far higher side armour on their hulls and turrets than the M1, Leo 2 and CR2. Far higher.

Not going to bite Abe. I've been back and forward on the Merkava with the guys in the other compartment. I like it. It would be great to have a reason to knock on the door that separates us and do some serious stuff together but I cannot see that happening.

and I'm wooki here because "weasel" was already taken


cheers


w

 

[eckherl]

The M1 has an engine in the back just as the Merkava has an engine in the front. The Merkava will always be fighting a protection deficit to protect the rear and its why the US Army is OK with the M1 as is.

Bottom line the Merkava was designed for tank on tank and is probably the best configuration to date for that. The M1, Leo 2 and Chally (by chance) are better suited to warfare where attacks can come fom any direction.

cheers

w

Hey Wooki,

Do you really think that a Nato series MBT is better suited for 360 degree defensive posture over a Merk series, offensive wise yes I give that honor to the Nato gunslingers, and what the hell is wrong with the Challie 2 rear end as far as armor protection goes.

 

[carman1877]

what do you think of the merkava's 60mm internal mortar?

it can fire explosive and illumination rounds. i just dont see a hugh use for it. matbe to shoot up a flare if damaged.

 

[kato]

Can be useful to have. And it's not like they're the first to have the idea, Germany used the basic concept in a couple WW2 tanks.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Not going to bite Abe. I've been back and forward on the Merkava with the guys in the other compartment. I like it. It would be great to have a reason to knock on the door that separates us and do some serious stuff together but I cannot see that happening.

Well the XM1200 is little more than a hybrid Merkava...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Can be useful to have. And it's not like they're the first to have the idea, Germany used the basic concept in a couple WW2 tanks.

Nor were the Germans. Its actually a British concept that unfortunately went out of style after the Centurion with its 2 inch bomb thrower.

The utility of this mortar is quite high. The Israeli's started refitting external mortars to all tanks after the 1973 war and its primary role was suppressing and obscuring ATGM teams. In many cases ATGM teams will be out of effective range from MG fire and behind cover requiring a plunging weapon like a mortar. In recent years its utility has found a new role in urban battles where it provides a tank or APC with a capability to hit threats located on top of multi-story buildings (the Israeli's also fit it to all their APCs including the new Namer). Normal tank weaponry can't engage RPG teams on building tops.

The Merkava Mk 2 incorporated the 60mm mortar as an internal mount operated by the gunner and loader. So the weapon can be completely operated from under armour.

 

[carman1877]

thanks, Abe that makes sense. Someone before posted that it wasnt fast and not menuveable but that is not true. it has a better range than Abram and Challenger 2. it is slightly slower, but has the best suspension.