Israeli Merkava mk4 vs. Egyptian M1A2 SEP

we already went through this Lebanon 2006,and we already agreed that no body here actually knows what happend there,and as benaakatz said,not many tanks were completly destroyed,lets agree on that you guys do not know what happend in Lebanon ok? for the simple reason,you just dont,we already seen the Arab Propaganda,about actaully capturing and killing haunbderds of Israeli soldiers when the Death-Toll was not higher than 121in Lebanon and in Gaza the Israeli Death-Toll was less than 10(if i remember right).
 
Actually I know what happened there, I have seen the few tanks that were destroyed(total loss), I know how the the Merkava Mk 4 armor stand up to AT-14 Kornet and I have seen some of the tanks that were only hit and not penetrated, and ones that were penetrated without serious damage. Unfortunatly a great deal of this information is classified.

The Merkava Mk 4 has very very good protection. It can stand up to very violent threats in its frontal arc. What it cant do is compensate for bad tactics or poorly trained crews, which was the situation in 2006 for the 401st armored brigade which operated them. This has been more than fixed since, and putting my childish unit rivalry aside(Im from the 7th brigade), 401st is once again a top of the line armored brigade.
 
All of you are just saying **** about Egypt as your info is all from Israel. I wanna tell first that our Abrams aren't junk export, they're made in Egypt with latest mods that us exports, and about our soldiers, abram crews have very high and intense training and they are very elite beyond what all of you think.
 
M1A2 and Merkava is known as best battle tank of protection in the world.
US and west Europe mocked the poor protective of Russian protective , But on the battlefield of Lebanon and Iraq, M1A2 and Merkava destroyed by anti-tank missile and IDE. Reality proof, if weak parts suffer attack , all kinds of tanks are as fragile.

Any kinds of battle tank can not endure one shoot by enemy mordernize tank, Merkava only protect the occupants die not so miserable.
The key of tank vs tank , is discover the enemy at first, and lower the possibility of be hit.

Another rivals of tanks are anti-tank missiles and artillery missiles. Merkava strong at it has "trophy" active protection system, . But I think Merkava only fit for defensive warfare, not are mainstream of tanks today.


No matter M1A2 and Merkava have their own limitations, M1A2 suit for plain. it is not the strongest in complex terrain, such as the Korean peninsula.
 
The Merkava is a specialist design to suit the IDF's needs from the Sinai to the Golan Heights. The Abrams is generalist design to suit the US Army's/USMC's needs through out the world. Two different weapons.

At any rate I will take the Merkava over the export model Abrams anyday.
 
If u tell me that's the Israelian are trained batter then how come they lost 2350 tank in the war of 1973 between them and Egypt and Egyptian lost 1700
 
If u tell me that's the Israelian are trained batter then how come they lost 2350 tank in the war of 1973 between them and Egypt and Egyptian lost 1700

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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".
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top