Merkava Mk4 vs. Abrams M1A2

The Merkava Mk 1 was proven in open combat against Syrian T-72s, and made an absolute joke of them. Also, the Merkava has been proven in combat every single day since then. The only problem with it was that it was specifically designed for the Israelis and combat in Israel.

If you size them up against each other they are pretty much equal in fire control, ammo, crew training, and mobility. I would say the Merkava is superior to the Abrams in all around protection from attack, while the Abrams being equal or superior over the front.

Overall, in the grand scheme of tanks, I would place the Abrams number 1 and the Merkava number 2, though none of which have an advantage over one another that's so great.

Originally posted by h4dd3n
The Challenger mark II is the best protected tank in NATO. And the fire control system is upgraded over the Abrams tank.

While the CHallenger does have better all around armor then the Abrams. It's fire control is inferior to the Abrams and it's mobility is lacking.

mobility is lacking? u seen how fast it goes ?
it might not catch an abrahm but it outbeats the rest

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by E_T

I don't really think they have to import DU used in front armour.

Thats the newest upgrade that I dont think is even on the tanks yet.

But I dont really know much about it.

Out,
Russian

The tank has had DU on its armor since it was first produced in the late 70's that shows how much you know about it.

Untrue, the Abrams received DU armor in the M1A1HA version which came in '88. The earlier versions used Chobham.

I should mention what the DU armor really is. It's a sheet of armor over the frontal Chobham to protect against long rods, it not's magical or gives the Abrams amazing protection, just added protection against long rods,

i have a model of the M1A2 and its a nice model. i love the M1A2, i think its a nice looking tank and i think its proven its worth in combat, considering how long its been used. it can be used in just about any terrain or conditions.

now admittedly i dont know much about the merkava or tanks in general but i do know that you can have the best of everything in or on a tank but it wont do you any good if the people running said tank are dumber than a box of rocks. there is a certain amount of luck involved in warfare, right place and the right time can mean the difference in life or death, loss or victory and we know this dont we? experience or good equipment is not enough. one can have what we might consider an inferiour tank but still win by what i've said, luck, right place at the right time...etc.

now i say this because i love tanks in general and i know that because something is better doesnt always means its superior, i know that doesnt make sense but think about it. even a couple sticks of dynamite can turn a tank into a roadblock regardless of the armor or the weapons it has.

tactics, experience, luck all play a role in victory on the battlefield, not just the quality of the equipment although its helpful!

we can compare numbers and stats but in the real world they tend to take a backseat after reality sets in.

Originally posted by devilwasp
mobility is lacking? u seen how fast it goes ?
it might not catch an abrahm but it outbeats the rest

The Challenger 2 uses a 1200 horsepower diesel, which is lacking in power to the Abrams, Leo, and Leclerc.

The new Challenger 2E uses a 1500 Europack but should not be compared, as it is not in service and is only an export model.

The abrams uses a 1500 hosepower turbine engine the same as in modern helicopters.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The abrams uses a 1500 hosepower turbine engine the same as in modern helicopters.

Same with the Merkava MK4.

link

Out,
Russian

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The abrams uses a 1500 hosepower turbine engine the same as in modern helicopters.

Same with the Merkava MK4.

link

Out,
Russian

The Merkava's engine isn't a turbine, it's a German made diesel.

where in that link does it say it has a turbine engine?

Originally posted by WestPoint23
where in that link does it say it has a turbine engine?

You said the Abrams has a 1500 turbine, he said "SAME" as the Merkava. I didn't look at the link.

Sorry Merkava isnt Turbine.

What I said is it has the same output.

1500 hp.

Out,
Russian

does anyone know if it makes a difference if its 1500hp turbine or just 1500?

From what I understand it dosen't make a difference for power. However Diesel is the preffered fuel for better range and not frying those behind you with exhaust.

A turbine provides better acceleration and speed characteristics compared to a diesel, while increasing fuel comsumption and thermal signature. The turbine is also lighter, smaller, much quieter, and easier to maintain. When you consider the massive amounts of money and logistics the US has, the fuel comsumption isn't much of an issue, and fuel only makes up 5% of a armored brigades supply costs. The thermal signature is much bigger, but it doesn't matter because a tank with modern thermal sights will see you regardless of what engine you're using (The original M60 thermal sight saw another M60 at +3500m).

Also, it is a total myth that soldiers cannot pile up behind an Abrams, stand about 5 feet away and you'll sweat from it, but you won't be burned.

I know all this because I've read posts from M1A1 tank commander that fought in the Gulf War and a Bradley commander at strategypage.com, go there, it's pretty informative.

thanx for the info

Originally posted by WestPoint23
thanx for the info

Your welcome. I just found this site which has armor protection values for pretty much every tank since the 50s. members.tripod.com...

It all seems to be pretty reasonable, I think most of it's right.

my army recruiter said that the M1A2 was hitting targets 2miles and up in the desert during the invasion.

[edit on 6-20-2004 by KrazyIvan]

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
my army recruiter said that the M1A2 was hitting targets 2miles and up in the desert during the invasion.

[edit on 6-20-2004 by KrazyIvan]

The M1A1B hit targets at +3500m while moving in excess of 45km an hour in the Gulf War and using inferior training ammunition on firing ranges.

The M1A2 has the best accelerating, quietest, and most fuel-versatile engine. There Leopard is next with a pending 1650HP upgraded diesel. All others tie except Challenger 2, which I am nicknaming little maginot, because it is impenetrable but immobile.

The Leopard's L55, followed by the M256 used by M1A2 and Leclerc, with Merkava next (presumably using an L44 120mm, although i couldn't find details) and the poor Challenger bringing up the rear with their rifled cannon and HESH rounds.

The Armor of the Challenger 2 is second to none. The M1A2 would likely absorb a hit from the Challenger2 or Merkava 4, or any Russian tank up to T-90. The Merkava is yet to be tested but is likely on par with the Leopard 2, which is repsectable. Considering weight, the Leclerc is probably a tin can, intended to shoot and scoot on European hills rather than to slug it's way through constricting terrain. (which makes it perfect for the next time Germany invades... I'd say we're over-due.)

The fire control seems comparable for all, except that not many details were availble on the Merkava 4, and there are rumors of serious bugs in the Leclerc because of its reliance on so much new software and electronics.

Considering extras... you have to give it to the Merkava 4 though. The troop carrying compartment, the modular (read upgradable) armor, and the long range lahat missile are going to make Merkavas effective in a wide range of terrains.


As for the idea that the Challenger 2's armor is the reason it hasn't taken losses in iraq; All tanks, including challenger 2, are vulnerable to well-placed volley-firing by light anti-tank weapons, as well as to howitizer shells (which are being used as IEDs in Iraq). The Challenger 2 is not being used as widely, and is not seeing action in the same areas of Iraq. If the Challenger 2 were operating in the cities, especially in al An-bar, and Najaf in particular, they would take losses. This effect would be increased if the Challenger 2 had the bad fortune to be in the hands of a reservist. If Iraq has taught the pentagon ANYTHING it had better be that you can't trust reservists. (especially mechanics from west virginia!)


EDIT: Kozzy, I am curious about your rating of the top tanks. How closely do you rate leo and merkava? I see the case for the merkava (cost effectivenessa and troop capacity) but I couldn't bring myself to take sides against german engineering and the best cannon in the field, especially when the merkava 4s armor is untested. (unless of course it was the same kind of armor on the Merkava 3s that got eaten alive in the Yom Kippur war.)

[edit on 21-6-2004 by The Vagabond]