Merkava
- Thread starter carman1877
- Start date
In a word, yes. Or put it this way. I would feel more confident in aHey 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.
1) Leo 2, Chally 2
2) M1A1
3) Merkava 4
As far as air attack goes, Armor wise, I would really have to lean towards the Chally 2, but the Merkava also has some interesting possibilities.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the Chally 2 rear end (?) Perhaps I missed a post?
cheers
w
carman1877
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #44
Let me rephrase, I was talking about the older models such as Mk. III. I did not know how many different types of Mk. IVs there were. I did not mean that you don't know how to post.
carman1877
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #45
The Challenger 2 uses ERA on sides, but IDK if it uses it on the top. I think it just uses Chobhom or what ever it is called.
carman1877
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #46
WAYLANDER, do you think it was smart to put the ngine in the front. This means the driver sits off to the left. Wouldn't this expose him to a left side shell hit?
Waylander, there is this great show in the USA I used to watch called "That 70's Show" and the Dad on the show used to have a favorite line where he would say to his son "dumb ass"...
My reasoning about "leaning towards" the Chally 2 is not about top armor, it is to do with stowing the powder charge in the hull. Straight away the turret becomes "spaced armor".
Would it mean that more crew survived? That is down to dumb luck, but at least you would have less chance of being burned to death.
I've also noticed here that most people think that a shaped charge hit on a tank means that you are done. It is simply not the case. If you are unlucky you might get in the way which is never nice, but if behind armor effects are controlled, the odds are in your favor.
That is to say, even though the Merkava has a "vulnerability" it is really a matter of controlling behind armor effects and hence the modifications in Mk 4. Ergo, you still have to be a lucky ATGM man to kill it with one shot.
cheers
w
carman1877
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #48
WOOKI, I agree with you on that. Especially the part about ATGM crews taking out a tank in one shot. Challengers have taking 12-15 hits and survived. One account even says that it survived 70 hits, but I don't know about that one. Like I stated before a merkava can take 3 or 4 hits, at least that is what i saw in a video, but im not sure if thats true.
In a word, yes. Or put it this way. I would feel more confident in a
1) Leo 2, Chally 2
2) M1A1
3) Merkava 4
As far as air attack goes, Armor wise, I would really have to lean towards the Chally 2, but the Merkava also has some interesting possibilities.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the Chally 2 rear end (?) Perhaps I missed a post?
cheers
w
Just making reference to a earlier post on all around vehicle protection, out of the three NATO beasts, the Challie 2 does have thicker rear armor, correct.
Boy do I need additional cups of joe.
carman1877
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #51
Would the M1A2 Abrams have most rear protection with TUSK upgrade.
Without though the Challenger 2 could have better protection, I don't know to much about protection
Without though the Challenger 2 could have better protection, I don't know to much about protection
carman1877
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #52
I think that it is hard to compare MBTs. First every country that produces one has their own design features. Someone can not really accurately compare two tanks because they all have different designs. I do not like only one tank but most tanks today considereing that they are all unique designs of the country or countries that produce them. I think that some of the best tanks are: Challenger 2, leopard 2, M1A2 Abrams, and merkava 4. For the reasons of protection, firepower, and wartime results.
Don't know as I didn't do anything with TUSK. Out of all the rear engined MBTs, those with diesel powerplants have better survivability as you can feasibly still run if a unit (one cylinder) gets taken out by something.
The ideal is something like a rotary engine that could combine the efficient thermal cycle of a gas turbine with the robustness of a reciprocating diesel, but nobody has fielded one of those yet, AFAIK.
Gas turbines (alah M1) fail very quickly when you throw something other then air into it. Although I think it was someone here who circulated photos of a China Air passenger plane that had belt buckles holding the compressor blades together. The plane apparently flew from China to Frankfurt where it was grounded. I couldn't believe it, so its not the first time I have been wrong on stuff.
cheers
w
Last edited:
We are talking in regards to basic armor levels, add on protective suite packages would add to the level of protection.
Ppphhhhh, daylight ours...
It's evening in good old europe and from now on I officially arrived in christmas holiday.
Christmas presents, fireworks, good food and drinks till 05.01..
And maybe I get to drive a BMP-2.
Take that!
Back on topic (a little bit at least).
Are the french actually fielding some stuff from their proposed urban combat kit?
I know they are using the RWS for some time now but what about the rest?
With them planning to get some Leclercs to A-stan some parts of the kit might be usefull.
Not sure.Ppphhhhh, daylight ours...
It's evening in good old europe and from now on I officially arrived in christmas holiday.
Christmas presents, fireworks, good food and drinks till 05.01..
And maybe I get to drive a BMP-2.
Take that!
Back on topic (a little bit at least).
Are the french actually fielding some stuff from their proposed urban combat kit?
I know they are using the RWS for some time now but what about the rest?
With them planning to get some Leclercs to A-stan some parts of the kit might be usefull.
I had some suspicions about their new little 8x8 vehicle and the use of NxRA in the centerline tray. If true it, seems that would make a very effective anti EFP measure.
cheers
w
carman1877
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #57
Are French putting this upgrade on for CQB or just for added protection? I bet now most of the countries are going to start to get armor upgrades like TUSK.
All Merkava Mk 4s have a loader's hatch. However it is covered by a bolt on array of top armour. This armour panel is removed for tanks attached to the training brigade as a tank trainer seat is mounted on the roof behind the loader's position and uses the open hatch to communicate with the trainee crew inside the tank.
Well it depends on which mark of the Abrams. The M1A2 SEP has the most advanced firepower of any Abrams. I would still rate the Merkava Mk 4 superior to the M1A2 SEP, CR2 and Leopard 2A6 in the firepower department.
It's fire control is better because it has a highly effective auto-tracker. Like the M1A2 and CR2 it has much better field of view for the hunter killer sights in a hull down position to the Leopard 2A6.
It has a more powerful L44 gun than the M1A2 and smoothbore is better than rifled for anti-tank. The Merkava Mk 4 gun is even better than the L55 120mm because the Merkava is firing DU rounds. It also has better non anti-tank rounds in the form of the APAM compared to the other 120mm tanks. It also has >25% more ammunition and a far better 'semi-automatic' loading system for higher sustained and mobile rates of fire.
For secondary armament it has the 12.7mm MG slaved to the gunner's sight and 60mm mortar capabilities none of the other tanks have. While some M1A2s have a 12.7mm RCWS via TUSK similar weapon stations have been trialled on the Merkava Mk 4.
They have decades of successfull experience with wheeled vehicles and they seem to really like their AMX-10RC, ERC-90 and VABs.
With the VBCI they get alot of additional flexibility for alot of possible oversea missions. IED, mine and EFP protection should be a logical result of these possible mission profiles.
They seem to think it is worth to have such a vehicle instead of a heavy tracked IFV.