Split from German Tanks: Merkava

Kozzy Mozzy

Active member
SHERMAN EDIT: This was split from the German Tanks discussion. The topic was brought up by Whispering Death, and this is the first post that was made in respons.

Whispering Death said:
What's the armor like on a Leopard 2?

By the way, I don't get this facination with the Merkava 4, it seems like an M1A2 or Challenger 2 would thoroughly destroy a Merkava due to the disparity in armor.

What disparity in armor? The Merkava Mk 4 is as armored if not more so then those tanks. It has more or less equal frontal armor with very good flank armor. The Merkava Mk 4 is also incredibly survivable in case of penetration.

Seeing first and shooting first is more important in any warfare then armor. Something the Merkava is as good as any other tank.
 
What is its armor, the greatest armor man has ever developed?

The thing weighs 10 tons less than an abrams, is 20 mph faster than an abrams, and has more stuff tucked into it like a troop carrying area and mortar. That tells me that they slapped in all those features at the expense of armor weight. It seems like it can hold up against RPGs and landmines (weapons of the PLO) but wouldn't do very well against other modern tanks like the Abrams or Challenger 2.
 
Whispering Death said:
What is its armor, the greatest armor man has ever developed?

The thing weighs 10 tons less than an abrams, is 20 mph faster than an abrams, and has more stuff tucked into it like a troop carrying area and mortar. That tells me that they slapped in all those features at the expense of armor weight. It seems like it can hold up against RPGs and landmines (weapons of the PLO) but wouldn't do very well against other modern tanks like the Abrams or Challenger 2.

What in God's name are you talking about? The Merkava Mk 3 and 4 weigh 63 and 65 tons respectively. The heaviest version of the M1 weighs 69. Both their maximum speeds are around 40 mph. Troops are carried in expense for ammo, there is no extra space meant for troopers. The 60mm mortar barely takes up any room at all, you could fit one into any tank easily. The Merkava Mk 3 has armor estimates at 800mm KE and 1600mm CE on turret front, 750mm KE and 1350mm for the glacis, and 650mm KE and 1100mm lower hull. The Mk 4 should be even higher.

Even then, warfare is an offensive game. The Merkava is just as offensive capable as any other tank and very wel equipped to kill it.
 
The info. I was reading said the Merkava could to 60 with a diesal engine, which tells me it is doing so at the expense of armor.

Interesting estimations but what kind of armor does it have? Not Chogum.
 
Whispering Death said:
The info. I was reading said the Merkava could to 60 with a diesal engine, which tells me it is doing so at the expense of armor.

Interesting estimations but what kind of armor does it have? Not Chogum.

60 KILOMETERS per hour, not 60 miles per hour.

No it doesn't have Chobham, but that's only one form of composite armor. The Leclerc, Leopard, and Merkava don't use "Chobham" but their own home grown composite armor, probably similar to Chobham. With this they all achieve a comparable level of protection.
 
Kozzy Mozzy said:
Whispering Death said:
The info. I was reading said the Merkava could to 60 with a diesal engine, which tells me it is doing so at the expense of armor.

Interesting estimations but what kind of armor does it have? Not Chogum.

60 KILOMETERS per hour, not 60 miles per hour.

No it doesn't have Chobham, but that's only one form of composite armor. The Leclerc, Leopard, and Merkava don't use "Chobham" but their own home grown composite armor, probably similar to Chobham. With this they all achieve a comparable level of protection.

60 kph? (I just got owned :p )

Do you know any tests I can look at for these new composite armors? We know chobham works because we've seen ordainence bounce off of it. Do we know these other type's work?
 
The armor on the Merkava is combat proven. It has seen hits from T-55s, T-62s, T-72s, RPGs, AT-3s, and numerous other weaponry. The Merkava Mk 1 and 2 proved themselves in the 82 war very well.

The armor on the Leclerc and Leopard is most likely their own home grown Chobham, basically ceramics and steel with other high strength materials. It's obviously passed tests because its in service, so it probably does work.
 
Kozzy Mozzy said:
T-55s, T-62s, T-72s, RPGs, AT-3s,

Those are all early 80s (i.e. outdated) weapons, that is the low bar for a modern MBT. In my book your armor had better be better than that if you're going to put it on the same level as an Abrams or Challenger 2.
 
What weapons do you think the Abrams proved itself against? The Abrams built it's mainly destroying the Iraqi army(twice). That Army was armed with exactly those weapons.

The extra features were not "slapped in" they have very certain purposes. The troop carrying abilety is only for use in emergencys or very special cases. the mortar was added so the tank can better defend itself against infantry. The Merkava was never built to fight against insurgents, it was built to defeat the Syrian and Egyptian armored forces.
 
I am very interested in learning about the Merkava and it looks like a solid tank to me.

But I'm going to ask again, where is the information about its armor and what it can withstand?
 
But I'm going to ask again, where is the information about its armor and what it can withstand?

Its hard to find anything exact on Israeli hardware...But I believe that the Merkava Mk 3 is armoured about the same as the M1A1. Merkava Mk 4 should be much better. Israel did some other stuff, Like put the engine upfront, so the crew has a lot more protection. No onereally knows the noumbers aside from the IDF, but it is believed by many that the Merkava is the best at crew survivebilety.
 
Whispering Death said:
I am very interested in learning about the Merkava and it looks like a solid tank to me.

But I'm going to ask again, where is the information about its armor and what it can withstand?

That's pretty classified. Israel doesn't want the world knowing what can blow up it's tanks.
 
an interesting tank it is, the main battle tank is the standard of the world, and the main point of the main battle tank is the capability to destory other tanks and pentrate enemy defensive networks as well as devensive tactics.

the tank should be designed around the three factors: speed, armor and weapon.

out of all these i think the leopard 2 wins, it is pretty advanced and hulk
 
Indeed.

I just love the the design of the merkava, its just butifull. Majestic like a desert animale (scorpion comes to mind) with an extencive armor just like the scorpion. Only the underbelly is where it can be hurt (well I'm trying to compare it to a scorpion :p) and with deadly weapons :D

I guess you will have to compare a stone to the ATGM hehe as some animales use a stone to crush the ontop armor of a scorpion with a stone. Just like a ATGM attacks the top of the tank ;)
 
rOk said:
My personal opinion is that between the top 5 tanks there's little to differentiate...it all comes down to politics, price, and other terms of the deal (home production, etc...)

you forgot crews and lower officers, 2 important things that have been essential in IDF victories in the past .
 
alex, im guessing the underbelly is VERY well armored, IDF has learnt from experince of MANY road bombs and mines to armor its tank, and up armor its existing m113's etc with steel plates for the floors... even the unarmored cards have steel plates for mines atleast up to say, 10kg.

i would also like to state, that the merkava 4 is very new, alot of the other top tanks are a few years old already...

another point is that the morter is used to conserve vital ammo from the main gun (only carries 50), this is handy for use against bunkers etc...
 
rocco said:
alex, im guessing the underbelly is VERY well armored, IDF has learnt from experince of MANY road bombs and mines to armor its tank, and up armor its existing m113's etc with steel plates for the floors... even the unarmored cards have steel plates for mines atleast up to say, 10kg.

i would also like to state, that the merkava 4 is very new, alot of the other top tanks are a few years old already...

another point is that the morter is used to conserve vital ammo from the main gun (only carries 50), this is handy for use against bunkers etc...

The mortar isn't used for that, 50 rounds of 120mm is the highest magazine count in the world for any tank. The mortar is used for firing illumination rounds and HE at infantry. I think it can also be dismounted so the crew can keep fighting after the tank dies.
 
Back
Top