Merkava

[Abraham Gubler]

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.

The Merkava Mk 4 isn't slower than the M1 or a CR2. The Mk 1, 2, 3 were. Not that straight line speed is a major need for tanks.

 

[carman1877]

someone was comparing the Abrams, Chall 2, and Merkava 4 fiepower, and said that they think the abrams would win. dont get me wrong i love the abrams, bu i like to explore other countries abilities to make tanks. how can they do that they all use the same main gun. the Rheinthall L55 120MM. the merkava would win anyway with (2) 7.62mm, (1) 50 cal, and 60mm mortar!!!

 

[Waylander]

@Kato

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

Jup, only through the hatches. But that's no problem and I don't understand why they haven't thought of this right from the beginning. As if they normally would give a sh*** about duty being easier for the crews...

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.

I am not advocating that one should use a Merk as some kind of big IFV. This capability is for special siutations only.
For example if one needs some armoured transport and no IFV or HAPC is nearby (like when a tank platoon is attached to a light infantry unit for support) or when one wants to get a small amount of specialists to a certain point as fast and as protected as possible.

@Abe

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.

But the fact remains that the Merk stores alot of ammo in it's rear compartment. While a traditional tank is going to be immobilized for some time when it eats a RPG or round with it's rear a Merk is going to get shredded with some bad luck.
ATGMs penetrating the rear of Merks during Lebanon in '06 vaporized the back of the tank because they ignited the ammo stored there. The extra ammo might be stored in fireproof containers but that won't help if the jet of a hollow charge catches them.

In the end I don't feel that it's easy to judge which concept is better and I doubt there are many unbiased people out there which have experiences with a Merkava Mrk.IV and some other modern western tank.

 

[carman1877]

WAYLANDER, if you think about it the Abrams could be immobolized from a rear shot, and so could a Merkava, however the crew of the Merkava would most likely sruvive.

 

[Waylander]

@Carman
Not all western tanks use the same gun.

The L/55 is only in use with the Leopard IIA6(M), E and HEL (K2...) while the L/44 is used by the M1 Abrams from A1 onwards, K1, Type90 and Merkava Mrk.3/4.
I have to admit I am not sure about the OTO L/44 in the Ariete is license produced, influenced or self developed.
The Challi 2 has it's rifled L30 and the Leclerc his own 52 calibre 120mm smoothbore (in coorporation with Rheinmetall).

And don't trust most public penetration figures for all of these weapons...

BTW, you should maybe stop counting weapons like it's a game. Otherwise one could get the feeling you are a fanboy.

 

[Waylander]

WAYLANDER, if you think about it the Abrams could be immobolized from a rear shot, and so could a Merkava, however the crew of the Merkava would most likely sruvive.

Have you even read what I wrote?

I said that a rear penetration will most likely immobilize a traditional tank while a Merk faces a possible fatal ammo cook-off when his rear is penetrated.
If that's what you meant with "immobilized", than yes a Merk also gets immobilized by rear penetrations.

 

[carman1877]

Just staing weapons, because that could givew it better portection agiant AT teams, infantry. people piss me off when they say that a tank could be better because it has an extra 5mm on the gun, just retaliating, srry.

 

[eckherl]

The Merkava Mk 4 isn't slower than the M1 or a CR2. The Mk 1, 2, 3 were. Not that straight line speed is a major need for tanks.

Agreed, straight line speed is not a factor given certain terrians in any given area, but a Merk and Nato designed tanks were intended to operate on different types of terrian structures, when the Merk goes with hydro gas or some type of rotary shock system, then it may be able to move and engage just as fast as a Leo 2 or M1 series tank but currently I do not think so, the darn thing is nose heavy.

 

[carman1877]

i dont think that stright line speed is important, however what about when you need to get somwhere quick to help someone out.

 

[eckherl]

Just staing weapons, because that could givew it better portection agiant AT teams, infantry. people piss me off when they say that a tank could win because it has an extra 5mm on the gun, just retaliating, srry.

Well what is your impression then with the Merkies without a loaders hatch and that they have to depend on a camera for observation, minus one crew served weapon correct.

 

[carman1877]

srry, i was tallking about Merkava Mk.III not Mk. IV. but i think that they should not have done that, but maybe there is a good idea behind it. what you think?

 

[Waylander]

Didn't they implemented loaders hatches into the Merk 4 with the last batches and are retrofitting it to the older ones?

Looks like they learned that some extra pair of eyes might be usefull...

 

[carman1877]

they might have figured that they could strenthen the turret top agisnt RPGs if they got rid of a hatch.

 

[carman1877]

WAYLANDER. i think that they old ones all had loaders hatches, but not 100 percent. that is where the loader shot his/her 7.62 mm.

 

[eckherl]

i dont think that stright line speed is important, however what about when you need to get somwhere quick to help someone out.

Merkava`s and Nato tanks play on different terrians, surely if the IDF felt that it needed a tank that could compete on the same offensive movement level as a Leo 2 or M1A2 series then surely they could correct that, but given the terrian that a Merkava is going to be operating in the offensive gains are not warranted.

 

[eckherl]

Didn't they implemented loaders hatches into the Merk 4 with the last batches and are retrofitting it to the older ones?

Looks like they learned that some extra pair of eyes might be usefull...

Yep, you are correct. Its kind of a thick bugger isn`t it.

 

[carman1877]

you are right, i saw on the military channel that it was made for Isreali land only.

 

[Waylander]

WAYLANDER. i think that they old ones all had loaders hatches, but not 100 percent. that is where the loader shot his/her 7.62 mm.

No, the older Merkava Mrk.IV had no loaders hatch.
The older Merkava versions (Mrk.I-III) had.

 

[eckherl]

srry, i was tallking about Merkava Mk.III not Mk. IV. but i think that they should not have done that, but maybe there is a good idea behind it. what you think?

Yes, the initial idea was for structure support against ATGMs and hand led devices.

 

[carman1877]

when i say older i mean MK.I-III. if i mean older Mk.IV ills ay that, K?