Merkava

[Abraham Gubler]

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.

Dual stage ATGM penetration of the rear hull of the Merkavas is not as bad as you make out. For one the 'vaporization' is not instantaneous. It takes 20 minutes for a chain reaction giving the crew plenty of time to escape the vehicle. Even the explosion of a round inside its container with a piercing is controllable to the extent of not killing the crew or causing major injury thanks to the fire suppression system and the layout of the vehicle.

This is far better than a Leopard 2 in which case the high end ATGM will penetrate the frontal armour of the tank and cause an instantaneous sympathetic detonation of the 20 or so rounds stored there killing the driver and flooding the fighting compartment with flames. The same with the CR2 (hull side penetration). The best vehicle for this kind of damage is the M1A1/A2 with all its ammunition stored in the compartmentalised turret bustle.

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.

I have.

 

[carman1877]

Thanks Abe, i thought the Merkava had the best firepower. i also saw a picture of the training seat you talked about.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

L/44 is used by the M1 Abrams from A1 onwards, K1, Type90 and Merkava Mrk.3/4.

The Israeli 120mm L44 is not a copy of the original Rheinmetall gun. It is a very different beast and an original design. The 2nd generation of this gun on the Merkava Mk 4 has much higher chamber pressures for higher velocity.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

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.

There was a lot of debate over this with IDF Tankists when Mantank proposed the new loader configuration for the Merkava Mk 4 . But what the Israelis did is changed the roles of all the vehicle crew. The commander was relieved of the role of providing driving direction (and anyone familiar with tanks knows how much the driver relays on situational awareness from the commander) thanks to the rear camera and the loader being given many of these roles. The loader also has a multi-function work station that enables him to see through the hunter killer sights and other sensors. The Israelis have also been wanting to fit the Merkava Mk 4 with a RCWS that the loader would have primary operation.

As for being deficient of a crew served weapon the only tanks in the world that I know of with two roof mounted 7.62mm MGs are Israeli. So in a comparative sense with other tanks (CR2, Leopard 2) what is the shortcoming. Also the firing arc and training of the Merkava Mk 4 commander's MG was significantly improved over the Mk 1/2/3 flex mounts.

 

[Waylander]

Dual stage ATGM penetration of the rear hull of the Merkavas is not as bad as you make out. For one the 'vaporization' is not instantaneous. It takes 20 minutes for a chain reaction giving the crew plenty of time to escape the vehicle. Even the explosion of a round inside its container with a piercing is controllable to the extent of not killing the crew or causing major injury thanks to the fire suppression system and the layout of the vehicle.

This is far better than a Leopard 2 in which case the high end ATGM will penetrate the frontal armour of the tank and cause an instantaneous sympathetic detonation of the 20 or so rounds stored there killing the driver and flooding the fighting compartment with flames. The same with the CR2 (hull side penetration). The best vehicle for this kind of damage is the M1A1/A2 with all its ammunition stored in the compartmentalised turret bustle.

Sure a Leopard II is going to get up in flames if something penetrates the frontal hull and ignites the reserve ammo.
I never questioned that.
I am surely not fully happy with the ammo storage concept of the Leo II but the reserve ammo is still in one of the best protected areas of the tank.
it is not that easy to get through the frontal hull with an ATGM.


But I am sceptical of the 20min which it takes untill a chain reaction starts and rips the rear of a Merk apart.
Why should the chain reaction wait for 20min until it starts? Fire needing it's time to burn through the fireproof containers? What if the ignited ammo rips open another container? I dont buy that the ammo loadout is save from a catastrophic ammo cook-off for the first 20min.
The design and material of the containers may very well reduce the risk but saying that there is no fast chain reaction looks much too optimistic for me.

BTW, we talked about rear hits.
A Leo gets a new powerpack within 15-20min and is ready to go again, a Leo gets penetrated frontally and is normally toast...
A Merk 4 gets penetrated in the front and maybe ready to go after they exchanged the powerpack or get a new driver + his cockpit, it gets penetrated in the rear and faces the threat of a (fast or slow) ammo cook-off.

IMHO the ideal combination would be a Leopard like design but with the hull ammo also in an own compartment with blast panels.


Nevertheless I am d'accord with the statement that the M1 should be the best protected tank when it comes to catastrophic ammo hits since they got rid of these lonely rounds in the crew compartment.

I have.

Oh, lucky one you are!
Operational experience? Evaluating experience?
Make me jealous.
Don't get me wrong. The Israelis made alot of interesting and good decisions during the design of the Merk series, of which some are IMHO better than what other western designers did.

The Israeli 120mm L44 is not a copy of the original Rheinmetall gun. It is a very different beast and an original design. The 2nd generation of this gun on the Merkava Mk 4 has much higher chamber pressures for higher velocity.

Maybe I should have been more clearly.
The MG251 and especially the MG253 are evolved Rheinmetall L/44.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

But I am sceptical of the 20min which it takes untill a chain reaction starts and rips the rear of a Merk apart.

It’s a proven capability, the containers are pretty tough. If the containerised ammo supply is hit by a penetration it has to provide at least 20 minutes before any sympathetic detonation or large scale explosion (overwhelming the fire suppression system). The Israelis are so confident of these containers level of resistance that they include the ammunition storage in the crew protection plan. 120mm main gun rounds are also stored in other places of the Mk 4 interior other than the rear of the hull in order to provide additional protection to the crew.

A Leo gets a new powerpack within 15-20min and is ready to go again, a Leo gets penetrated frontally and is normally toast.. .

After its been recovered... If you are not in possession of the battlefield this means it isn’t. Many, many M1s have had to be destroyed by the crew after having their power pack knocked out in Iraq because there were not sufficient ground forces to secure the tank until it could be recovered. In conventional linear warfare WW2 showed that possession of the battlefield by the attacking force (German in the first half and Allied in the second half) had a huge effect on maintaining tank numbers as the knocked out vehicles could be recovered and returned to service.

A Merk 4 gets penetrated in the front and maybe ready to go after they exchanged the powerpack or get a new driver + his cockpit, it gets penetrated in the rear and faces the threat of a (fast or slow) ammo cook-off.

The driver has their own little armoured box separated from the engine compartment. It’s quite a neat looking little thing. The other problem with this comparison is the level of penetrator required to effect it. The engine and driver of the Merkava Mk 4 is as well protected as any part of any other MBT, despite its facing forward. The rear of the Merkava Mk 4 is also more protected than the rear of any other tank. I don’t see any disadvantage in this configuration beyond semantical.

Oh, lucky one you are!
Operational experience? Evaluating experience?
Make me jealous.

Evaluation, and just to make you even more jealous I’ve uploaded a picture of me at Tel haShomer as my Avatar ;-)

Maybe I should have been more clearly.
The MG251 and especially the MG253 are evolved Rheinmetall L/44.

The Israelis retained the inner geometry of the ordnance so they could use the same ammunition but their designs are very different guns.

 

[Waylander]

It’s a proven capability, the containers are pretty tough. If the containerised ammo supply is hit by a penetration it has to provide at least 20 minutes before any sympathetic detonation or large scale explosion (overwhelming the fire suppression system). The Israelis are so confident of these containers level of resistance that they include the ammunition storage in the crew protection plan. 120mm main gun rounds are also stored in other places of the Mk 4 interior other than the rear of the hull in order to provide additional protection to the crew.

Impressive when it works as advertised.
Do you have an idea how thick these containers are?

After its been recovered... If you are not in possession of the battlefield this means it isn’t. Many, many M1s have had to be destroyed by the crew after having their power pack knocked out in Iraq because there were not sufficient ground forces to secure the tank until it could be recovered. In conventional linear warfare WW2 showed that possession of the battlefield by the attacking force (German in the first half and Allied in the second half) had a huge effect on maintaining tank numbers as the knocked out vehicles could be recovered and returned to service.

That's a problem with every knocked out vehicle which remains on an enemy controlled battlefield.
Attrition numbers rise alot when one is loosing territory.

I got the impression that the main problem of the US forces during OIF was that they were much too fast in their optempo and too thinly spread to give their recovery crews the chance to get an immobilized Abrams back into safety. It was much safer and quicker to just blow it up and keep going.
If the US would have used Merkava Mrk.IV they might have been less often in a situation where they were in the need to abandon a tank.
The Israelis hat their own portion of stucked tanks during Lebanon '06 but IIRC they were able to recover all of them.
This might not have been the case if they wouldn't have been fighting in such a small area and rather static operational environment.

Evaluation, and just to make you even more jealous I’ve uploaded a picture of me at Tel haShomer as my Avatar

That was unnecessary...

I know alot of tankers who would give alot for the chance to get that close to a Merk 4. (Including me...)

What makes me still curious is that the Israelis had the idea to relieve the TC of his task to give assistance to the driver.
While every additional task is a burden (as you know as a TC the word multitasking gets a whole new dimension...) I wouldn't count it as one of the major burdens, especially not with the widespread introduction of rear cameras.

From my experience the loader is most usefull when he adds his SA to the task of identifying and classifying threats and I would have wanted to increase his ability to help his TC with that as much as possible (Which they apparently have done partially with giving him the ability to use the TC sight).
Giving him the ability to add his Mrk1 eyeballs to the game is IMHO essential.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Impressive when it works as advertised.
Do you have an idea how thick these containers are?

Its pretty heavily tested. I guess they would be about 1-2cm thick? Its pretty impressive what you can do with advanced materials these days, though really this is just kind of like Space Shuttle tiles applied to a tubular form.

From my experience the loader is most usefull when he adds his SA to the task of identifying and classifying threats and I would have wanted to increase his ability to help his TC with that as much as possible (Which they apparently have done partially with giving him the ability to use the TC sight).
Giving him the ability to add his Mrk1 eyeballs to the game is IMHO essential.

The Israelis are strongly moving away from open hatches fighting.

 

[carman1877]

WAYLANDER, I have seen the containers, four rounds each and looked about half to 3/4 inch thick. but it was not that clear of a photo.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

WAYLANDER, I have seen the containers, four rounds each and looked about half to 3/4 inch thick. but it was not that clear of a photo.

That's the old technology originally used in the Mk 3. The Mk 4 and Sabra use individual containers that enclose each round.

 

[Waylander]

Its pretty heavily tested. I guess they would be about 1-2cm thick? Its pretty impressive what you can do with advanced materials these days, though really this is just kind of like Space Shuttle tiles applied to a tubular form.



The Israelis are strongly moving away from open hatches fighting.

Thanks for the infos.

Are you sure with them moving away from open hatches?
They just added a loaders hatch to the Merk 4 so for me it looks like they are not fully in love with the idea of less open hatches anymore.

While I agree that advanced sensor add alot of SA to the crew when working fully under armor I still don't see anyone having reached the point where looking out of a hatch becomes unimportant.
Will be interesting to see how our future Puma crews make their transition...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

They just added a loaders hatch to the Merk 4 so for me it looks like they are not fully in love with the idea of less open hatches anymore.

See my earlier post. Every Merkava Mk 4 from no.1 to no. xxx has been built with a loader's hatch. It is just covered by bolted down armour array in operational units. The armour array is removed and the hatch is used for training support when the tanks are configured with a tank rider training officer.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I got the impression that the main problem of the US forces during OIF was that they were much too fast in their optempo and too thinly spread to give their recovery crews the chance to get an immobilized Abrams back into safety. It was much safer and quicker to just blow it up and keep going.
If the US would have used Merkava Mrk.IV they might have been less often in a situation where they were in the need to abandon a tank.

Speed wasn't the problem it was low force density. So if they had a knocked out tank there was no one to guard it. After the invasion the problem is the same with M1s doing COIN duty and getting knocked out by an IED and then having to be destroyed by the crew.

In many cases these are very easy to repair damage and the tank would be back in service in hours if it could be guarded until a recovery unit was on hand. Even then the 'destroyed' tanks would be recovered eventually and rebuilt back in the USA.

 

[carman1877]

Is the 50 Cal. on the Merkava III is remote operated? If so does it use thermal?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Is the 50 Cal. on the Merkava III is remote operated? If so does it use thermal?

The 12.7mm on the Merkava is co-axial to the main gun. So they are sighted by the gunner using the main sight and fired by solenoid from within the vehicle.

 

[Waylander]

See my earlier post. Every Merkava Mk 4 from no.1 to no. xxx has been built with a loader's hatch. It is just covered by bolted down armour array in operational units. The armour array is removed and the hatch is used for training support when the tanks are configured with a tank rider training officer.

I know that normally an armor array covers the hatch.
But over at tank-net they showed photos of what looks like a change in policy and one member there gave the magazine "Bamahane" as a source.
There it is written that the 401st brigade is transitioning to Merkava Mrk.IV Bet. One of the changes of the Bet is that there now is always a usable loaders hatch included. looks credible what they are stating.

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/6097/42xd0dm6.jpg

http://dover.idf.il/NR/rdonlyres/B7654C65-...0/288200802.jpg

I know that such internet sources tend to be less accurate (some more, some less) and maybe you are able to verify it with your own sources.
I bet yours are much better than mine.

Speed wasn't the problem it was low force density. So if they had a knocked out tank there was no one to guard it. After the invasion the problem is the same with M1s doing COIN duty and getting knocked out by an IED and then having to be destroyed by the crew.

In many cases these are very easy to repair damage and the tank would be back in service in hours if it could be guarded until a recovery unit was on hand. Even then the 'destroyed' tanks would be recovered eventually and rebuilt back in the USA.

That's what I meant. Alot of these tanks were far away from not being repairable.
But IMO the speed and kind of the operations was also a factor.
They had to perform alot of fast aggressive strikes with their armored spearheads.
Sometimes into areas where they just went in, destroyed and panicked some enemy forces and retreated back to the main effort.
Not to forget the thunder runs which by nature most often call for immobilized tracks to be abandoned.

But you are right that these kind of actions were forced onto the US troops by the factor that they were so thinly spread.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I was all over one of those Mk 4 Bets (actually a rebuilt Mk 4 to the new standard) and no loader's hatch. No one from Mantank mentioned this mod as well but we were talking mostly about APS and the Namer.

Looking at that picture you've linked to and it is clearly a loader's hatch with a Mk 4 roof armour level cover (so not the training configuration). It would be a bitch to open and close because unlike the commander's hatch it doesn't have power opening. However looking further at the picture the crewman in the loader's position is clearly an IDF field grade officer or higher. This looks to me like a battle command modification with the loader position being taken by a company/battalion/regiment commander or opso who needs better situational awareness but can't spare time to command the tank. The Merkava Mk.4 loader's position would be ideal for this kind of role.

 

[Waylander]

Thanks again for clearing this up.

Does the multi-function work station for the loader you mentioned before is also able to fully show and interact with the battlefield management system or is there a need for installing some more stuff.
And if it is necessary does the IDF have a standardized kit which makes a usefull command position out of the loaders station?

Now that you revealed your knowledge about the Merkava I am going to milk you...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

No the standard crew workstation (driver, loader) is not the Elbit BMS. But there is plenty of room to install one. I followed your link to tanknet and the Tankists there agree with the command tank argument and there are a range of extra controls on top of those two hatch tanks for controlling radio nets as a field commander would.

 

[Waylander]

Looks like I missunderstood the thread.
I thought while some Merkava Mk.IV are used as command tanks the idea of giving the loader in a Merk 4 Bet a working loaders hatch is seperated from this.