Merkava Mk 4 -VS- Leopard 2A6
CanadianCombat
Active member
Whoever gets the first shot off.
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.
Cdt Matteo
Active member
There's too many factors involved.
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
hmmm this was preetey dead, but i cant help my self from refering to your post lemask
Wont go into that but your wrong on some of that
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.
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.
Actually, no it isent. it is desighned to fight the Syrian and Egyptian tank fleets.
And i suppose you know what we use it for?
Source? im asking cause i dont know the Merkava Mk4 frontal armor value in RHS(not that i would tell you if i did).
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?
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.
damn, I thought I've found a critical information...
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...
and Syria must have some old T-72 tanks or something of this kind... not very high-tech...
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...
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.
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...
I tried to give an answer with the little knowledge I have. And I'm definetely not an expert.
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...
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...
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...
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...
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.
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...
The Leopard was developed to fight t-80 and t-72. the merkava mk 4 is designed to match any possible opponent in the middle east- that includes T-80, Abrams M1E2(egyptian abrams), and Challenger 1. The 125mm cannon of the t-72 is preetey much the same as the T-80 and T-90, exept the Syrian ones dont launch missiles.
Naturally we dont use the 60mm to hit other tanks. however, its was added after the 1973 conflict, which was a large scale mechenised war. It can be used against AT teams, can be used against buildings, and it can give ilumination. its very useful actually.
Hezbollah used missiles with tandem heat charges, that penetrate far more steel than the avarage AP shot from a 105,120 or 125 mm gun.
No, im not a MK4 comamder, I leave that to little girls who dont like grease on their hands
I command a MK2, its old, its ugly, and its fantasticMk4 has 1500 horse power diesel engine. Ive seen those tanks do speeds that no one would believe, and ive seen them climb over things i couldent believe(and im a tank commander). s far as firepower, the Mk4 and Abrams probably have similar capabilities with their main gun. As far as i know the abrams dose not carry a 60mm mortar.
I get the point. I heard that Saudi Arabia have Abrams too. but I have little knowledge about their army... I dont know about the source of the manpower to make an army is such country where everybody is rich and doesnt want to risk his life... maybe mercenaries from other sunnis countries... I dont know, I will search for some infos later...
and I think that a smaller diameter round have more penetration power... Am I stupid?
I hope you dont...
but it would be nice to take out a disabled tank while you are hiding behind a hill... with a hiden spoter telling you if you are hitting the target or not.
but I wonder how accurate a mortar can be...
and I completely forgot the illumination. I thought the tanks came standard with grenade launchers to deploy smoke when attacked...
but a mortar is bigger and more effective for illumination... hum... yep! forgot about that...
I'm honestly surprised to hear that...
I just hope you wont need to have grease on your hands in a combat situation...No, im not a MK4 comamder, I leave that to little girls who dont like grease on their hands
not the perfect time to change a tire...
I'm sure that the Merkava is a wonderful piece of equipement, no doubt about that.
it's just that I'm not the brave type, and I would love the idea of being able to disappear quickly... the acceleration of a turbine engine looks very attracting to me...
of course, I dont want to pay the oil bill at the end of the month...
UnitedSomalia
Banned
I would put my money on the Leopard, the Germans are known for making the one of the best tanks and armored forces in the world, they are pioneers in this field. The leopard is a masterpiece and it is even better than M1A2.
Sherman,
Correct me if I'm wrong here
The Merkiva has the door in the rear the engine and drive train are forward. This is the one and only feature that I don't like about the Merkiva tank line. A solid hit or the driver running into something solid can damage the final drives this will disable the tank. That's why almost every other tank in the world has the final drives in the rear.
Changing final drives are a pain in the butt, at least on vehicles I have worked on. It takes a lot of time and is tough under fire.
For those who have never driven a tank or worked on one, look at the picture the Lunitic put up, it shows both thanks in question now look at the German tank tracks, you will see the drive sprocket it's the one with teeth like on your bicycle there is shaft that goes through the hull into the tank that is where the power from the transmission goes to the track. On the Israeli tank the final drive sprocket is on the front because of the engine being in the front.
Correct me if I'm wrong here
The Merkiva has the door in the rear the engine and drive train are forward. This is the one and only feature that I don't like about the Merkiva tank line. A solid hit or the driver running into something solid can damage the final drives this will disable the tank. That's why almost every other tank in the world has the final drives in the rear.
Changing final drives are a pain in the butt, at least on vehicles I have worked on. It takes a lot of time and is tough under fire.
For those who have never driven a tank or worked on one, look at the picture the Lunitic put up, it shows both thanks in question now look at the German tank tracks, you will see the drive sprocket it's the one with teeth like on your bicycle there is shaft that goes through the hull into the tank that is where the power from the transmission goes to the track. On the Israeli tank the final drive sprocket is on the front because of the engine being in the front.
Last edited:
way back when I was in the Marines I hated changing those things on AAV7 back when I was a Crew Chief (vehicle commander). I started out as a tracked vehicle repairman and then switched to crew then to crew chief
Thanks for the info
We could change a power pack (engine transmission) pretty quick but that darn final drive was a pain in the rear glad to hear you guys have it figured out.
Thanks for the info
We could change a power pack (engine transmission) pretty quick but that darn final drive was a pain in the rear glad to hear you guys have it figured out.
Last edited:
way back when I was in the Marines I hated changing those things on AAV7 back when I was a Crew Chief (vehicle commander)
Well, You need to understand that the Merkava was built so that changing engines will be extremely fast.
The engine is up front to give more protection to the crew- a crew can change engines but an engine cant change crews
Actually, I dident give any(Look carefully there are no figures)
Well, You need to understand that the Merkava was built so that changing engines will be extremely fast.
The engine is up front to give more protection to the crew- a crew can change engines but an engine cant change crews
Actually, I dident give any(Look carefully there are no figures)