It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Merkava Mk4 vs. Abrams M1A2

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 12:31 PM
While I like some of the comments I have seen, I believe some of you need to learn more about what you are talking about. You have to look at the stats. While I am in the U.S. Army, and am inclined to support the Abrams, I cannot negate the capabilities of the enemy. Russian tanks are proven garbage. Bottome line I have seen many T-72 and T-80 turrets peel off as if opened by a gigantic bottle opener. The Merkava on the other hand is a totally different story. While it pisses me off that someone might have something better than me, I have to admit that the Merkava is probably the best device for death on the planet when related to ground warfare. Having nearly twice the armor of the Abrams and no weaknesses. The Abrams engine, whild powerfull, is still located in the rear of the tank where it is made vulnerable by something as simple as an RPG. The Merkava lacks this problem. The strongest part of a tank is the front. During an engagement the tank always turns the hull towards the target. On the Merkava, you have the engine protected by the sloped armor on the front of the tank. It also can carry more amunition than the Abrams. In a joint training exercise, the U.S. tankers got their asses handed to them by the Merkava and they weren't even using live ammo. The bottom line is while the Abrams can dominate the battlefield, it doean't make it the greatest tank. The two tanks were designed for two different types of warfare. The Abrams was designed to fight in eastern Europe. In such a situation it is exceptional. Someone wrote earlier that the Merkava hasn't been tested in combat. This is false. It first saw action in the Lebanon war. It was designed for fighting in the balkans. Rocky terrain and is very capable in an urban environment. Probably the only tank in the world with a 60mm mortar that can be fired remotely, from inside the tank. Think what you will, you cannot know which one is superior until they face off in a real fight. Everything else is just speculation.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 12:31 PM

posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 12:30 AM

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:40 PM
reply to post by Russian

Actually everything I have read suggests the Centurion as the basis for the orginal mk. 1 and upgraded mk. 2. The MK.3 was totally redesigned and upgraded based on combat experience gained in 1982 and other skirmishes. The mk.4 is the latest with upgraded armor and electronics.

As for the debate of the Chobham armor, It was a joint colaboration between the US and Britain. The armor is top secret but is known to the US. The Challenger 2 is a heavier, slower tank because it does have thicker armor. As for the comment about the hellfire missle. The marines lost a abrams in Desert Storm. It was disabled and they did not want to leave it behind to fall into enemy hands. The decision was made to destroy it. A sabot round and 2 hellfires were launched and did not fully destroy the tank.

M1A2 with Tusk armor is the newest upgrade designed to give the Abrams urban survivability. It comprises of many ideas the Israeli's have fielded such as the anti-sniper .50 call mounted on the mantlet.

The tanks were designed for different reasons. The Abrams was designed to combat the steel curtain on the battlefields of Europe. Fast, well armored and extremely accurate the Abrams has proven itself time and time again in tank on tank engagements. The kill ratio is really high.

The Merkava mk.4 was designed to handle the different terrains such as the desert and the rocky Golan heights. It is more rugged and designed based on combat experiences in '67, '73, '82 and until now. It was also designed with crew survivability.

I would say they are even. The crew makes the ultimate choice as the tank is only as good as the crew.

Remember the lesson of WWII, Tigers were one of the best tanks (as long as they did not break down) and were taken down by Shermans (albeit many shermans) . Crew and conditions can dictate victory.

A American that admires the Merkava and the Abrams

posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 03:16 PM

Originally posted by rustiswordz

Originally posted by Russian
Can we have anyone else but these American bastard post here.

For example someone with an open mind?

So we can really discuss something and not just fart in the air?


OK, Im from the UK

Some one suggested the Merkerva was russian based. Actually the merkerva was based on the cheaftain and early challenger tanks. UK tanks.

Also the American Abrahams tank used Chobham Composite Armour, made in the UK.

How do i know easy, I live 3 miles awayfrom the Chobham factory and i regularly see Abrahams tanks being driven away on the back of transporters.

Heh they have to use British armour because the US armour is crap!

the armour is shipped out to the states premade or the tanks are fitted out over here, because the armour is difficult to produce and the formula is top secret not even the yanks are allowed to know what goes into the armour.

The new Chobham mk 5 armour is reputed to be able to withstand a direct hit from a Hellfire missile, and is only avalible to British vehicles. The Abraham uses the mark 3.

In the GULF War 2 Abraham tanks were knocked out on a fairly regular basis, but the new Dorchester Armour on the British Challenger 2 was resistant to the same fire the US tanks took and the new desert filters on our tanks removed the relibillity problems of the Challenger 2 making the C2 a better tank than the Abrahams on points.

I also go for the merkerva, simply because its part British..... nuff said. LOL

Hope that helps Mr Russian.

[edit on 17-6-2004 by rustiswordz]

Yes, you are from UK and a clueless retard at the same time. Withstand a direct hit from HELLFIRE missile??
HAHAHAH ..There is no known armour in the world that can withstand a Hellfire hit. You bloody liar.. Current M1 and those being updated incorporate depleted uranium mesh into the formula. Chobham was two generations ago. The present American armour is better than Chobham

Here is an interesting link for you...LOL

Enjoy your Chobham armour dude..

posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 03:28 PM
MI Abrams are the best tanks in the world. .Except armour and engine British Challenger tanks are not even British its entire electronics, computers ,rangefinders ,nightvisions comes form either France or the US.

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in