yes i like it 2 although with my head outside wont do me much good

Another thing I liked about Israeli Armor Tactics the tank commander with his head outside the tank. Lose a lot of tank commanders that way the enemy will lose a lot of tanks.

It might boil down to visibility. I almost always had my head outside the AAV-7 execpt when we drove on or off a ship that is. No one was shooting at me.

Official change to my vote without ground troops the Israelis would win not doubt about it.

I rememeber one night before we were recovered from the Carter years and did not have night vision equipement I had to follow an M-60 tank the way I knew when to slam on the breaks was I could feel the exhaust in on my skin. The night was dark but the sandy road was fairly bright. To this day I don't know how we made it down that road that night in colum of blind armord vehicles. I must have used the Force.

Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you.
He is training with minimum food or water, in austere conditions, day and night.
The only thing clean on him is his weapon.
He doesn't worry about what workout to do...
His rucksack weighs what he weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him.
The True believer doesn't care 'how hard it is'... he knows he either wins or he dies.
He doesn't go home at 1700... he is home.
He knows only the cause...
Now, who wants to quit?

Is a taller profile good or bad for a tank?

Some say it is good because it enables the crew to hide behind things like hills, objects and trenches, etc, and still be able to observe the battlefield and engage targets while others argue that comes at the cost of stealth and tactically it is a lot more important. What is your opinion on that?

Btw,

Merkava Height: 2.66 m
Leopard Height: 3.0 m

lower profile is better. You can always take hull down positions, regardless of your tanks low profile. however, when your turret is too low, your main gun and co-axial macihne gun cant be lowered much(case point- T-55).
40 cm is alot of height actually, are you sure about those figures for the Mk 4?

I'm not sure if the figures are correct, they're from Wikipedia. The info column is listed under a photo of Mk 4, so I'm guessing those are Mk 4's charasteristics? Mk 3 and 4 should have the same height. I and II are slightly shorter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava

Mk-4 is slightly taller than 3, and much taller than 1&2. Mk 2 is naturally less protected than Mk4, but has a very nerrow and low turret profile. And yes those specs are for the Mk4, note 1500 hp diesel and only 2 7.62 MGs.

HA HA, such silliness.

You have two very capable tanks designed to fight in different environments, just looking at the vehicle suspensions should show all of you this.

Originally Posted by Pale Rider

HA HA, such silliness.

You have two very capable tanks designed to fight in different environments, just looking at the vehicle suspensions should show all of you this.

Canadian Leo2A4s work just peachy in Afganistan ( they leased them from Bundeswehr ) that said 2A6 has a definite edge in firepower and armor.

Originally Posted by Rorke

Canadian Leo2A4s work just peachy in Afganistan ( they leased them from Bundeswehr ) that said 2A6 has a definite edge in firepower and armor.

And the Canadians are using them against what in Afganistan, also they are not LEO 2 A4s. Do you even know what type of armor a LEO 2 A6 uses versus a Merkava 4, I would give them a even match in the turret protection zone, hull is a different story, that goes to the Merkava 4.

Mekava 4 is designed for rocky hilly terrian while a LEO 2 series suspension is designed for cross country sprints at high speeds, neither a Leo 2 series nor a M1 for that matter will match up to a Merkava series mobility wise, especially fighting it on its home territory.

Originally Posted by Pale Rider

And the Canadians are using them against what in Afganistan, also they are not LEO 2 A4s. Do you even know what type of armor a LEO 2 A6 uses versus a Merkava 4, I would give them a even match in the turret protection zone, hull is a different story, that goes to the Merkava 4.

Mekava 4 is designed for rocky hilly terrian while a LEO 2 series suspension is designed for cross country sprints at high speeds, neither a Leo 2 series nor a M1 for that matter will match up to a Merkava series mobility wise, especially fighting it on its home territory.

First of all Canadians did lease 2A4s, second of all Merkava uses a mix of indigenous composites and Chobham also they store their diesel in a manner that protects against HEAT.

Leo2A6 has an advanced composite armor, advanced laminate armor on the turret and frontal hull which at current time provides estimated that cumulation rounds have to penetrate 1730-1960mm on the turret.

We can also expand on the upgraded MK III canon vs the new L-55 canon which at current time provides greatest velocity among 'all' tank canons worldwide.

Before you issue b******t statements about hardware because you like some piece of it do some research.