The Merkava 4 MBT

[loktarr]

I believe that all the modern MBTs Leclerc, Leo 2A6, M1A2, etc are basically much the same with some slight differences not enough to make a major impact on the battlefield.

I think the same, in fact from what happened in history, I would go further and say that the MBTs quality would not decide of the war...
BTW, in 1940, France has got B1 tank who where virtualy impossible to kill from german tanks... In fact there was a little point where german gunners could penetrate the tank, and you know what happened to France in 1940...
other date, 1944, battle in Normandy, sherman where a pure **** in comparison with Panthers, and allied did win: half of the german tanks destroyed in Normandy where not from allies but from breakdowns and fuel missings...

I tried an experiment in order to determinate which was the best MBT in SPMBT, the results are on the After Combat Repport section, but when trying it in areal battle, the tank type doesn't matter, and every tank can kill other tanks...

You have to understand that what is utmost important in a tank is its crew. A motor and a whole tank can be rebuilt. Crews can't.

That's true, and I am not a specialist in tank armor, in fact determining tanks qualities when they didn't fight each other is really hard... So has proven by WW2, the best tank is the one who never has breakdowns
Only one point wrong:

you will notice that the Leclerc has as much advanced FC rating as other tanks (50), but a higher RFO, which can be considered to account for both the advanced targetting system (which by now also Merkavas, Abrams and Japanese Type-90 have IIRC) and the autoloader.

You seem to ignore that the ROF is only used in SP for determination of ROF for indirect arty fire, so it' totally useless in the case of a MBT, for which the ROF is only determinated by the experience of the crew...

[cusbut]

Plasma: The Merkava Mk3 & Mk4 LIC a speciallised modification for urban warfare
http://www.defense-update.com/produc...erkava-lic.htm

[JaM]

Backis:
1.I was not talking about reality,My priority is make OOB as much accurate as it gets. In SP game rear hit often immobilize target.(side hits too, but not as often,side hits make more kills than rear hits).Merkavas in game if hit in rear are immobilized, and this is not real.
2. It is hard to tell witch tank is better armored. Merkavas had very vell sloped turret so they are much better protected than M1A2 from front, but will be weaker from 30° than M1A2. I saw some estimates Paul Lakowski posted not so long ago, and he stated that Merkava Mk2 had front turret armor 760mm (+-200mm due to horizontal and vertical sloping) Mk3 Dor Dalet would be in 900+ region and Mk4 around 1000mm+
against kinetic energy.Mk3 and Mk4 has modular armor with most modern passive armor.
M1 Abrams was designed in 1970"s, Front hull armor is quite weak against modern APFSDS rounds (upper front hull is 50-70mm at 83degrees= 550-600mm effective protection) This is not so hard target for new APFSDS rounds capable penetrating 800mm+ at 2000m (Chinesse 125mm DU rounds, etc...)

[JaM]

Merkava is not an APC, it is capable carry some soldiers, but not whole squad. Rear comparment was suposed to provide transport capability for crews from destroyed own tanks.

[JaM]

Post deleted by JaM

[JaM]

You was faster than me...

[loktarr]

I was speaking of an intifada RPG not of a US M1A2 firing at a range of 5000m in the rear door of a Merkava...
For the "shell trap", I was speaking of the whole turret not of the rear door, has you said it every tank has some very weak points, but that's not the same as the "shell trap". Just imagine what will do a shell hiting on the upper hull that slides...
Edit:
seen some picture, may admit the M1 has a very good shell trap too..

[kevin]

FYI to all......

The US Army brought back infantry on tank tactics for Iraqi Freedom. A brigade of 101st troopers were attached to the 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division. During the assault through the Karbala Gap, fireteams (4 soldiers) were assigned to each tank. The terrain was suburban, no tall buildings, but enough infrastructure to be concerned. Each soldier lay prone at the tank's corners, behind sandbags. The TC and Loader were on their MGs, the gunner used the coax in a limited front field of attack.

Someone mentioned it would be suicide for the infantry if someone with an RPG struck or an MBT was encountered. Well...... yes. You only use these tactics when the chance of an encounter with enemy MBTs is very low. As far as RPGs, the tanks carry Infantry to add 360 degree immediate response fire, and RPG launchers show up like a sore thumb on TI sites.

[Backis]

JaM said:
Backis:
1.I was not talking about reality,My priority is make OOB as much accurate as it gets. In SP game rear hit often immobilize target.(side hits too, but not as often,side hits make more kills than rear hits).Merkavas in game if hit in rear are immobilized, and this is not real.

Fair enough...

But to reach reasonable consensus on what is accurate representaion in the game, we must reach reasonable consensus on what interpretation of reality thats supposed to be represented in the first place, no?

I'd say that a vast majority of "real" MK's are track related rather than engine related, I'd hold the designs difference due to front or rear mounted engines as pretty much irrelevant to in-game handling of mobility damage.

I'd play around with the games handling of the survivability trait instead.

Oh, the Merkava entered service in 1979, the M1 Abrams in 1980, calling the Abrams "inferior by age" is bit off... Eventhough the IV is mightily improved it shares layout with earlier marks and isn't "magically" better. Armour mass is increased, but it still need to be more distributed due to the percieved need to have better allround protection.

[JaM]

Merkava Mk3 is complete new tank.But even Merkava Mk1 had better design than Abrams for purposes that israel needs.Abrams is grat tank for WW3 war, but it is not as good as merkava in golan or sinai.Both tanks were build with experience from 1973 Yom Kippur war in mind, but M1 Abrams was much more attack tank and Merkava was suposed to defend.M1 has superior mobility, same firepower and standard protection against KE and good against CE. Merkava Mk1 had very good frontal protection (front turret was quite strong,unpenetrable for late 70s early 80s APFSDS direct hit).Engine in front made Front hull unpenetrable for all CE weapons of late 70s and early 80s,due to compromising mobility.
Merkava Mk4 has most modern passive armor.If you look at Leopard 2A6 front turret addon armor rised protection from 650-700mm KE to 950-1100mm KE.But this layout is 10 years old(2A5)Merkava mk4 has layout from year 2000, so there must be adleast minor improvement in technology.
Biggest weakness of Abrams (in early 80s it wasnt weakness but strongpoint...) is glacis armor. 83° degree is enogh for deflecting all non-precise HEAT warheads and sheated APFSDS rounds, but it is not enough now. Most ATGMs have not problems with it.Even RPG-29 could easily penetrate it.All modern APFSDS will penetrate it from quite great range (BM-42M could do 600mm at 2000m...)
Merkava Mk4 could face Egyptian M1A1 tanks armed with KEW-A1 APFSDS (590mm at 2000m)or new KEW-A2 (660mm at 2000m), so its front hull and turret could handle it. Autotracker and Firecontrol system gives quite good bonus against M1A1.(Same thing works against Jordanian Challengers)