merkava vs abrams

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
For those that complain that the Merkava only faces RPGs, let me educate you. The Merkava Mk1 faced off against T72s & 80s in Lebenon back in the 1980s & crushed them with no losses. Since then the tank has done nothing but improve. The US garnished much of its info for war against Iraq from Israeli experience. The bottom line is US, British, German, & Israeli tanks are all superior fighting machines. All have advantages & disadvatages. The ability & quality of the crews is what will make the difference in battle between these tanks. Most experts do agree that the Merkava does supply their crews with the most superior crew protection though. We may only find out which tank is truly superior when Israel & Egypt once again go to war over the Sinia.




posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Overal Mk is very nice series of tanks. Though they had some looses during Lebanon War.

Acording to Richard Gabriel's (former intelligence officer in the US military) book "Operation Peace for Galilee", seven Merkavas were destroyed in the Lebanon war, most by RPGs. Israeli data showed that when their other MBTs were hit there was a 61% chance of the tank being penetrated. For the Merkava chances of penetration dropped to 41%. Perhaps more importantly, of those Centurions and Magachs hit, 30% of the rounds penetrated the crew compartment. For the Merkava, the figure dropped to 13%. For those Israeli tanks other than the Merkava some 31% of those hit caught fire. For the Merkava the figure is 15%. No Merkava suffered from secondary detonation after being set alight. In addition, no Merkava crewman ended up as a burns casualty, although that is the fate of around usually some 25% of wounded tank crewmen.

And hell, there were no t-80s in Lebanon War(1982). First production model was in 1983.




Victim of Syrian anti-tank teams Merkava Mk.1, destroyed in Beirut, in early summer 1982 by an RPG. The Israelis subsequently mounted a local counterattack and recovered the wreckage.




Syrian Army anti-tank team seen displaying its main weapons: RPG-7s.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   
To say one is supirior to the other would require greater knowledge of more specific details of the tanks than I posses, or likely ever will posses.

Armor: Both tanks feature highly sloped chobam armor, augmented by fire supression systems. I'm not sure, but I believe both tanks have also been supplied with reactive armor against shape charged weapons. The exact makeup of the armor package I understand to be classified, which makes sence. After all, who wants to publish for thier enemies exactly how big a warhead is needed to kill your own tank crews? Both have excellent armor.

Firepower: The firepower of the M1-A2 and M1-A1 is legendary, but a big gun alone wont finish the jpb. The ability to detect, tack and hit your opponet, preferably while on the move yourself, all with a weapon able to inflict certain death upon him, THAT is the essence of firepower. I know the Abrams can do all of these things, but the Merkava is an unknown to me.

Engine: All the armor and firepower in the world wont do a thing for you if you can't get to the fight. Since it's neccisary to limit both firepower and armor to what's practicle, you need an engine that can move you quickly across whatever terrain you encounter, at speeds that will give you the initiative against your foes. Again, the Merkava is an unknown to me.

Suspension: the final traditional factor in evaluating a tank's fitnes for duty, it's also the most frequently overlooked. A classic example is the German King Tiger tank of WW2 fame. It had the greatest level of armor protection and firepower anywhere on the battlefield, but was so slow and encumbered in the simple task of moving around due to inadaquate engine and suspension that the total value of the tank itself was highly comprimised. More relevent to the topic at hand, I once again have no certain perception of the abilities of either tank in this department, though I suspect they are both quite good.

*edit* RPGs are the weapon of choice against tanks in urban combat because they give infantry a fighting chance in terrain that favors them. In open field combat, they'd never hope to get close enough to use them.

[edit on 3-4-2006 by Travellar]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I stand corrected on the T80 being in Lebanon. Depending on the source, T80 production & deployment started anywhere from 1978 to 1983.

Most articles place top speed of Merkava @ about 35mph. I have been passed by one on the Golan & it was doing 40mph plus. Don't believe all we raed, they can move.

Should be noted that crews members have survived large improvised land mines in the Gaza while the tank was a total loss.

For a good video of current Merkava IV go to
www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 04:47 AM
link   
My Friend is an AT specialist in FDF
His opinion, based on intel info they train with, says that merkava mk4 is the most likely tank in the world to protect it's crew incase the tank is destroyed.

As for firepower and general combat performance, Lastest models of Abrams, Leopard, Chally, Ariete, Leclerc and Merkava are about equal. No one can tell how they cope against each other, but against other threats the difference is small. Altough he says that Merkava is most likely best CQB tank in the world, but it's low speed is a drawback in conventional battle.


Ps. Top speeds officially said are usually much lower than the actual top speed that experienced crews can get their vehicles going. Our Xa-185 6x6 APC has official top speed of 95Km/h but i know each and everyone of them can go 120km/h with one bolt removed. (some can go 130km/h)



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by boscoman
For those that complain that the Merkava only faces RPGs, let me educate you. The Merkava Mk1 faced off against T72s & 80s in Lebenon back in the 1980s & crushed them with no losses. Since then the tank has done nothing but improve. The US garnished much of its info for war against Iraq from Israeli experience. The bottom line is US, British, German, & Israeli tanks are all superior fighting machines. All have advantages & disadvatages. The ability & quality of the crews is what will make the difference in battle between these tanks. Most experts do agree that the Merkava does supply their crews with the most superior crew protection though. We may only find out which tank is truly superior when Israel & Egypt once again go to war over the Sinia.


i have to disagree with your last statment. the egyption abrams tanks are downgraded version of the real version that america has. secondly they dont have the same composite armour based on the chobom. and 3rd they are unlikly to have the same high quality ammunition as the american versions.

israelis tanks will most likely win 100% of the time against egyption abrams.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Travellar
To say one is supirior to the other would require greater knowledge of more specific details of the tanks than I posses, or likely ever will posses.

Armor: Both tanks feature highly sloped chobam armor, augmented by fire supression systems. I'm not sure, but I believe both tanks have also been supplied with reactive armor against shape charged weapons. The exact makeup of the armor package I understand to be classified, which makes sence. After all, who wants to publish for thier enemies exactly how big a warhead is needed to kill your own tank crews? Both have excellent armor.

Firepower: The firepower of the M1-A2 and M1-A1 is legendary, but a big gun alone wont finish the jpb. The ability to detect, tack and hit your opponet, preferably while on the move yourself, all with a weapon able to inflict certain death upon him, THAT is the essence of firepower. I know the Abrams can do all of these things, but the Merkava is an unknown to me.

Engine: All the armor and firepower in the world wont do a thing for you if you can't get to the fight. Since it's neccisary to limit both firepower and armor to what's practicle, you need an engine that can move you quickly across whatever terrain you encounter, at speeds that will give you the initiative against your foes. Again, the Merkava is an unknown to me.

Suspension: the final traditional factor in evaluating a tank's fitnes for duty, it's also the most frequently overlooked. A classic example is the German King Tiger tank of WW2 fame. It had the greatest level of armor protection and firepower anywhere on the battlefield, but was so slow and encumbered in the simple task of moving around due to inadaquate engine and suspension that the total value of the tank itself was highly comprimised. More relevent to the topic at hand, I once again have no certain perception of the abilities of either tank in this department, though I suspect they are both quite good.

*edit* RPGs are the weapon of choice against tanks in urban combat because they give infantry a fighting chance in terrain that favors them. In open field combat, they'd never hope to get close enough to use them.

[edit on 3-4-2006 by Travellar]


does merkava have chobom? ive never heard that one before.

secondly the challenger gun is actually superiour to the guns o the other tanks not in firepower but long range accuracy becuase its rifled.

and about the armour of the merkava i disagree. i think sticking the engine in the front is a huge disadvantage in guerilla warfare against a decent enemy. becuase it takes away protection from the back where you are most likly to be hit with a wire guided missile. infact i am willing to be 1 hit from a modern wire guided tandem warhead missile directly in the back end of a merkava and the tank is finished. the abrams crew members owe there lives to the fact that abrams stuck that huge engine in the back when RPG's clearly penatrated the back and set the tank on fire if that engine wasnt there alot more americans would have died in iraq from tank deaths.

merkavas greatest weakness in my opionion is not having the engine in the back to give extra protection to the tank crew.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 07:13 AM
link   
The Lebenon T-72s were older first created in (1971) and exported version of the Soviet T-72. The Soviets never exported their top of the line tech. After the war both the Israelis and the Syrians claimed their main tank's superiority, but there is no verifiable evidence of a T-72 destroying a Merkava or vice versa.

Clearly tanks were destroyed on both sides but its hard to say exact what destroyed what. Israeli destroyed more tanks but that could have been large due to its dominace in the air they had better and more Attack Aircraft and Armed Helicopters which can be the bane of any tank without air cover. The IAF Cobras for example claimed dozens of Syrian armored fighting vehicles kills,including Soviet T-72s.

So I dont really know how people make the claims of Merkava Mk1 s crushing T-72s. Its clear the the Israeli military crushed T-72s but its hard to say what exactly did the bulk of the crushing. Both sides dont have the same acccounts.


As for a Merkava MK4 vs M1A2 its hard to say since they are very closely matched only some small differences like the M1A2 clearly has more power and speed. It would really come down to you had the better trained crew IMO and who uses the better tactics.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
well golly gosh - i love the slating of the M1A1 that egpyt is using:

www.globalsecurity.org...


the only difference is the *lack* of DU in thr drmour - it is using mk1 chobham without the DU - its the same as the brit challenger 1 - so around 630mm RHAe on the front and turret


and the same gun is used as the M1A1D as used in Iraq and same DU ammo.


Further - Egypt are preparing the convert all of there 880 M1`s to A2 spec and new build more.

and since only 1 tank in the world has a chance of bouncing the DU shells(which isn`t from israel) i can see lots of burning tanks on both sides.

[edit on 3/5/06 by Harlequin]



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
The Merkava does not have chobham armour. The MK4 which started deployment in 2004 has “modular ballistic armour” / “modular special armour” whatever that is. Chobham armour is used by the UK and US.

Cheers



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   
basiclally in amor im not so sure that knowledge is not made public you can

check the estimated armor protection levels here

members.tripod.com... . Depending on what part of the

tank we're talking about getting hit one tank might be better than the other. For

firepower i's'd go with the abrms because its DU penetrators are better

although merkava has more weapons to choose from. Most tanks have the

engine in the back for protection merkava has it on the front. M1A has the

btter C4ISR,com links,data links etc. On speed i'd go with the abrams its

faster due to allthe other extra stuff and the fact is the abrams engine is

more powerful. Overall i'd take the abrams.


just on a little side not anything vs anything threads arent allowed on ATS the mods will close this thread down.

[edit on 4-4-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

and since only 1 tank in the world has a chance of bouncing the DU shells(which isn`t from israel) i can see lots of burning tanks on both sides.


You're still hanging on to this notion? And why you seem to tout this as fact is also beyond me.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
just on a little side not anything vs anything threads arent allowed on ATS the mods will close this thread down.

True, but it's really not much of a "which would win in a fight" type thread, more of a discussion of the Merkava using the M1-A2 as a baseline.

The Soviet T-64 was supposedly the first tank to use a combined steel/ceramic laminate armor, though I made the mistake earlier of reffering to all such armor as Chobam. (the British research facility to first develop it for the west)



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

and since only 1 tank in the world has a chance of bouncing the DU shells(which isn`t from israel) i can see lots of burning tanks on both sides.


You're still hanging on to this notion? And why you seem to tout this as fact is also beyond me.



we had this conversation remember - the challenger has slightly better armour on the turret than the armour pen of the M829A3 round



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   
not entirely true the M1A2 has significanly better armor than any of the oler m1A1 models.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   

we had this conversation remember - the challenger has slightly better armour on the turret than the armour pen of the M829A3 round


Yeah we did, and as I recall I told you that both specs are still classified, however for the sake of argument we'll go with educated estimates. And according to them both the Challenger II and the SEP have the same protection level against KE rounds, now can you guess what that means? One more thing, according to estimates the L-28 APFSDS has virtually the same penetration level as the A3.

[edit on 6-4-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
does merkava have chobom? ive never heard that one before.


"Chobham" is not a single brand of armor. Its not even a real name. Also, there is not only one kind of armor that came from the british research facilities at Chobham Common (a region in Surrey, England). "Chobham armor" more commonly refers to a special ceramic matrix composite armor, so it more is an indication of the manufacturing process used.

This is comparable to Kevlar, actually Kevlar is only a brand name of the company DuPont which invented this speacial kind of aramide fibre, and technically only Dupont may label their products "Kevlar". This special kind of aramide fibre is however manufactured now all over the world by dozens of companies, and though they all have their independent name, they are COMMONLY referred to as "Kevlar".

I dont recall what armor the Merkava 4 has, but if it is built in the form of a ceramic matrix composite, then you can call it "Chobham" or "Chobham-style".


secondly the challenger gun is actually superiour to the guns o the other tanks not in firepower but long range accuracy becuase its rifled.


No it isnt. There´s a reason why most modern tanks, Eastern and Western, inside and outside of NATO use smoothbores. Since we are speaking of tank vs. tank here, we have to think of the effectivity of APFSDS rounds. APFSDS work less good with a spin, so they have a special casing that prevents them from being spun by the rifled L30A1 cannon.

APFSDS` travel faster and longer than compact rounds such as HESH and HEAT, also shot placement is more important for the KE penetrator to work properly (as opposed to the explosive-based HE shells) so the APFSDS is the better indicator of long range accuracy. The rifling only improves the accuracy of the HESH round, but the HESH system is inferior in damaging potential against armored targets, and also increasingly ineffective against composite armors and the spread of spall-liners in vehicles (not only tanks).

OTOH shaped charges (HEAT) lose effectivity through a rifled barrel because the explosive energy is partly dissipated by the spinning. There are also HEAT shells with no-spin casings similar to the APFSDS available, but these have an accuracy and range penalty.

So all in all, the L30A1 has NO combat-effective advantage. The only reason for the rifled cannon was the HESH, and that shell didnt stand the test of time.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

we had this conversation remember - the challenger has slightly better armour on the turret than the armour pen of the M829A3 round


Yeah we did, and as I recall I told you that both specs are still classified, however for the sake of argument we'll go with educated estimates. And according to them both the Challenger II and the SEP have the same protection level against KE rounds, now can you guess what that means? One more thing, according to estimates the L-28 APFSDS has virtually the same penetration level as the A3.



ANd that there will only ever be 300 SEP`s and the majority tank in the US Army service will allways be the M1A1D


ok moot point - although i still surmise that the chally has more on the turret but the SEP has more on the galcis



so both have a chance of bouncing each others shots.

when do egypt get the M1A2?



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Egypt got the A2s even before they entered service with the US. I don't remember which year that was, but they got them a good 6 months before US forces.





 
0

log in

join