Merkava Mk 4 -VS- Leopard 2A6 -




 
--
 
July 23rd, 2008  
Lunatik
 
 

Merkava Mk 4 -VS- Leopard 2A6 info


Leopard 2A6


Merkava Mk 4


Which tank do you think would prevail in a tank versus tank battle scenario with no other tactical involvement from the infantry, air force, etc.?
July 31st, 2008  
CanadianCombat
 
 
Whoever gets the first shot off.
July 31st, 2008  
Lunatik
 
 
And which tank, based on your personal knowledge and analysis of their capabilities, has a higher probability of getting the first shot?
--
July 31st, 2008  
SHERMAN
 
 
lunatik, the chance of anyone here having the answer t othat is very unlikely. both tanks a re very very classified. i will not tell you what the avarage time for a merkava mk4 crew to fire their first round at a target, but i will tell you about the Mk2 since its not classified. it is about 10 seconds, and good crew do it in 7. in 20 seconds usually 3 rounds(this is based on me doing this as a gunner, as a loader, and as a commander). now iamgine that the Mk 4 has far better fire controll, has higher sights, and so on.
July 31st, 2008  
Cdt Matteo
 
 
There's too many factors involved.
July 31st, 2008  
AFSteliga
 
 
Both are very capable weapons platforms. However, as Cdt Matteo said, there are too many factors to consider before being able to decide on a 'winner'.

Crew training and experience, shot placement, terrain, etc... all play a part in that decision.
July 31st, 2008  
Yossarian
 
 
Well, It's hard to answer questions like these. I have seen endless questions on gear vs. gear. Sukhoi 35 BM Vs. F 22A, AK 47 Vs. M 16, M 16 Vs. L 85 (I am guilty of the latter one.) But I have learned that you can only look at paper facts. I mean , look at the situations that this question would require to learn the answer to your comparison.

The facts would be to hard to compare. I mean, as I far as you can take it is paper figures, performance readings, and that's about it, plus, even if a enemy of Germany for instance, got a highly advanced Merkava and went toe to toe, there are factors like crew experience and the amount of logistics that the opposing armies put into the deployment and upkeep of their tanks. It's all politics, in meaning that for these two pieces of hardware to be gunning at one another means, that two modern 1st world nations are not getting along. In today's world , you can pretty much tell a lot about a enemy by his gear. And if he is sporting highly advanced tanks like a Leopard, or Merkava, then he has slightly deeper pockets than some unstable state, or rebel or insurgent group. This also gives some facts on how he will handle his gear. All this stuff is factors.

No matter how you look at it, the best you can do is find answers for "what if ?" Scenarios. And in invention "what if?" scenarios, the factors are up to you, and thus, you are God of the factors. And being God, the answer to your question? Is all up to you and which piece you like better for whatever reason.

There are some members on the forums that serve in armored units, they could probably tell you a whole lot more about this match up than I can, and about the factors that you must consider.
September 23rd, 2008  
LeMask
 
infos:
Merkava = 65 tons, 3.72 m wide, 2.66m high, main gun 120mm smoothbore, 42 rounds ammo capacity, diesel engine, operational range 500km
Leopard = 42tons ,3.37 m wide, 2.70 m high, main gun 105mm rifled , 55rounds ammo capacity multi fuel engine, operational range 600km
+special: the loader is also a radio operator

I would bet on the German tank. It's a tank hunter...

the Merkava is a wonderful tank with an excellent armor rating.
while the Leopard is an all rounder with an excellent fire control.

you shouldnt think of it like a duel between two tanks. in a duel, the luck factor will intervene. presuming equal crews... of course...

so we should think about a huge tank battle... let's say 10billions of $ worth of Leopard Vs. 10billions of $ worth of Merkava ...because the price is important too...

also, it should be in a campaign lasting for 2 years... because endurance is also important... the upkeep factor must be taken into consideration too.

the Merkava is designed to fight low tech armies like the Hezbollah/Palestinian militias and such...

it's a good tool for fighting light weapons and infantry... they even have an internal mortar...

while the Leopard is designed (I think) to fight a Russian Invasion... or just to fight other tanks.

the Merkava is well armored, but it's not enough to resist a blow from the canon of a modern tank.

so the Merkava's armor would be a waste of ressources when it comes to fighting another tank... more mobility or firepower would be a blessing in this case.
September 23rd, 2008  
SHERMAN
 
 
hmmm this was preetey dead, but i cant help my self from refering to your post lemask

Quote:
Merkava = 65 tons, 3.72 m wide, 2.66m high, main gun 120mm smoothbore, 42 rounds ammo capacity, diesel engine, operational range 500km
Wont go into that but your wrong on some of that
Quote:
Leopard = 42tons ,3.37 m wide, 2.70 m high, main gun 105mm rifled , 55rounds ammo capacity multi fuel engine, operational range 600km
+special: the loader is also a radio operator
Your wrong on the main gun(Its a 120mm smooth bore). Also, in most western armies that have a human loader, the loader is also a radio operator.

Quote:
also, it should be in a campaign lasting for 2 years... because endurance is also important... the upkeep factor must be taken into consideration too
Yes but the chance of any 2 conventional armies fighting a full scale war for 2 years in a row is very slim. Id say 1-4 months is far more rational.

Quote:
the Merkava is designed to fight low tech armies like the Hezbollah/Palestinian militias and such...
Actually, no it isent. it is desighned to fight the Syrian and Egyptian tank fleets.
Quote:
they even have an internal mortar
And i suppose you know what we use it for?
Quote:
the Merkava is well armored, but it's not enough to resist a blow from the canon of a modern tank
Source? im asking cause i dont know the Merkava Mk4 frontal armor value in RHS(not that i would tell you if i did).
Quote:
more mobility or firepower would be a blessing in this case.
As a tank comamnder, after seeing the Mk4 in work, I can hardly imagine more speed or firepower in a tank. What do you think it lacks in these fields?
September 24th, 2008  
LeMask
 
Well, I took my infos on the Internet... (Wikipedia to be accurate)

I tried to give an answer with the little knowledge I have. And I'm definetely not an expert.

Quote:
Your wrong on the main gun(Its a 120mm smooth bore). Also, in most western armies that have a human loader, the loader is also a radio operator.
Added to my infos. thanks. I just thought it was up to the tank commander to take care of such things... he is the one giving orders after all...

damn, I thought I've found a critical information...

Quote:
Yes but the chance of any 2 conventional armies fighting a full scale war for 2 years in a row is very slim. Id say 1-4 months is far more rational.
I dont know about that. I'm the kind to say that everything is possible. but the chances are slim indeed.

I just wanted an experiment to compare the two killing machines...
but I've found another one. you take a tank crew, you give them a mission... like fighting other tanks, and give them the choice between a Merkava and a Leopard.
then you give them another mission like fighting infantry and give them the same choice... and so on.

tanks are tools. a hammer is good to put a nail into wood. you wouldnt take a chainsaw for the same job...

Quote:
Actually, no it isent. it is desighned to fight the Syrian and Egyptian tank fleets.
they have low tech armies there... and Egypt is a friendly country now, they have modern weapons... but I know for sure that if they have modern weapons today, it's because they wont use them against Israel or any US ally country.
and Syria must have some old T-72 tanks or something of this kind... not very high-tech...

Quote:
And i suppose you know what we use it for?
the mortar? yep, I think I know. indirect fire? for pounding on infantry or buildings/fortifications...
I know that the tanks top-armor is a soft-spot (if we dare to call it soft)... but I dont think that a mortar round have a huge penetration power.

I'm aware that once you disable a tank (e.g. mobility kill) it will be vulnerable to artillery fire...
but is the mortar really effective against a tank? tell me, I'm very curious...

Quote:
Source? im asking cause i dont know the Merkava Mk4 frontal armor value in RHS(not that i would tell you if i did).
A guess... I know that Israeli Tanks were destroyed in the war in Lebanon. and the Hezbollah had no tanks... they used shoulder fired guided missiles.
and I dont think that the Merkava could resist a blow from an Abrams... or a Leopard.

I heard about a Sabot shot from an Abrams going through many Iraqi tanks in desert storm. if you heard such thing, please share.

Quote:
As a tank comamnder, after seeing the Mk4 in work, I can hardly imagine more speed or firepower in a tank. What do you think it lacks in these fields?
I'm just a civilian, sir. it's not my field. I'm sure you love your tank like I love my car (maybe more).
but the Leopard is smaller... lighter... makes it a smaller target. so I think that against other tanks, the Leopard would have better results.

I know that the Abrams got turbines... giving him a lot of power in a short amount of time. wonderful accelerations...
and it's firepower is the same as the Merkava, not? cant we say that the Abrams got more speed and firepower than the Merkava?

of course... the fuel consumption must be HUGE...
 


Similar Topics
Split from German Tanks: Merkava
World Tank Ranking
Leopard 2 vs. Abrams
Apple Unleashes Leopard Operating System
China's "Snow Leopard Commando" to drill with Russian commandoes