Israeli Merkava mk4 vs. Egyptian M1A2 SEP - Page 6




 
--
 
December 25th, 2013  
ScarabVenom
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Because you are wrong.

1,063 Israeli tanks destroyed,damaged or captured out of 1,600.

2,250 Arab tanks destroyed,damaged or captured out of 3,400. (1,700 Egypt - 1,200 Syria and 500 Expeditionary)

Battle of the Sinai (Yom Kippur War) October 14, 1973
Israel lost 50 tanks out of 800.
Egypt lost 264 tanks out of 900.
Any sources for these numbers?? And on that same date 14th of October, although not a huge fan of Wikipedia, I'll send you this link.

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

62 Egyptian MIG-21s against 160 F-4 Phantoms and Skyhawks and yet, an Egyptian victory. We've discussed this war multiple times on different threads, if you have anything to add to what you've already said before, I'd like to hear it else please accept the fact that the war was for Egypt this time.
December 25th, 2013  
Easy-8
 
 
We are talking about two very different designs. The Abrams is designed to be good in any terrain across the world. The Merkava 4 is designed to be great from the Sinai Peninsula to the Golan Heights.

Seeing as how the Merkava is fighting on its home turf against a export model tank. I give the edge to the Merkava.
August 16th, 2016  
Ramses
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Because you are wrong.

1,063 Israeli tanks destroyed,damaged or captured out of 1,600.

2,250 Arab tanks destroyed,damaged or captured out of 3,400. (1,700 Egypt - 1,200 Syria and 500 Expeditionary)

Battle of the Sinai (Yom Kippur War) October 14, 1973
Israel lost 50 tanks out of 800.
Egypt lost 264 tanks out of 900.
1700 tanks lost? Did we even have that many tanks back then?
I mean... The entire force that was dedicated for the war was 800 tanks that crossed out of 1200 total around the Suez canal.

We simply couldn't have lost that many tanks because we didn't have that many tanks in the war to start with.
--
August 16th, 2016  
VDKMS
 
The 1700 are the total tanks Egypt had (part of the 3400, not the 2250 destroyed, damaged or captured) of which 1030 crossed the canal. My post does not say how many of the 2250 tanks were Egyptian. It is estimated that Egypt still had 720 tanks on the east side of the canal at the end of the war.
September 23rd, 2016  
Ramses
 
Well, since that is the case, the only source I've found to give day-to-day reports of tank losses on both sides was a book by El-Shazly, the mind behind Egyptian operations in that war.
I don't remember the exact numbers now, but it was somewhere around 250 tanks from October 6th to October 14th, and around 250 on October 14th alone. In one battle we lost more tanks than how much we lost throughout most of the war. That's why all generals were opposed to it, and the reason this particular general was relieved of his duties after depate with Sadat.
Worths noting us the fact that this was a battle between 700 dug-in izzy tanks with air support and infantry, with 250 of our own without infantry, artillery or air support, since only that many tanks attacked, with the rest of our forces still in the positions the original plan of the war tasked them with occupying. Most of our losses were due to air strikes and infantry TOW missiles as they were being picked up long before they got in rage to engage izzy tanks.

I've read some posts claiming better training, but how good you need to be when you're in hull-down position and you can destroy your adversary tanks hitting their front armor from 2000 meters with range finders, while they can only hope to acheive a disabling hit to your side armor at 1000 meters and don't have range finders, firing on the move without gun stabilization?
The izzies didn't have superior training nor tactics, they just had better machines. One tank veteran put it this way on a TV interview: "The difference between the tanks they had and the tanks we had is like the difference between tigers and cats".
September 24th, 2016  
Ramses
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy-8
We are talking about two very different designs. The Abrams is designed to be good in any terrain across the world. The Merkava 4 is designed to be great from the Sinai Peninsula to the Golan Heights.

Seeing as how the Merkava is fighting on its home turf against a export model tank. I give the edge to the Merkava.
As far as I know, the US never had "export models". It's simple, if they don't want you to have it, they will say: No, we won't sell it to you. A very big part of why to buy American is that you get what you pay for.
That's exactly what they did with the F-16 F15 combination; they gave both to the izzies, sold us perfectly-functioning F-16 and said no F-15s.
The only export models they make are customer-specific and are given different designations than standard models, so if the deal doesn't say it's an export model, it's a standard model.
All the news and reports about Abrams deals never mentioned "monkey models". That's a Soviet thing the US never did.
The standard M1A1 doesn't have DU armor. The US brought up some or all of its M1A1s to M1A2 armor standards, but it's safe to assume the M1A1s we have have the same protection standard of any other M1A1 without DU armor upgrade.

Few of our Abrams (125) have MCD active protection system (visually recognizable by a box shape device in the same place the commander independent sight is on the M1A2).

The Merkava is good for the role the izzies deploy them for; fighting opponents with far less developed tanks or no tanks at all. In a large-scale war with an actual army, the Merkava design doesn't add any advantages.
 


Similar Topics
Israeli soldiers kill 2 Egyptian border policemen
Israeli tourist stabbed in Egyptian Red Sea resort (AP)
Israel Escorts Egyptian Arms Delivery To Abbas
M1A2 SEP (System Enhancment Package)
Report: Israeli Tank Kills 3 Egyptian Troops