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.


Which is Better? M1A2 or Merkava 4

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 09:22 PM
The Mark 3 and Mark 4 should be compared to the M1A1 and M1A2. The Mark1 was based on 1979 tech and should not be compared to those other tanks.

So if you compare the Mark3 to the M1A1 it is OK. The Mark 3 never saw any tank vs tank combat. The last Mark design to see combat was the Mark1 in Israel's incursion into Lebanon in 1982. The Mark 2 came into operation in 1983. The Mark4 is a improved version of the Mark3 but the Mark4 is a complete redesign compared to the Mark1.

Just because a T-34 was good in combat does not make a newer version like the T-72 a combat proven tank.

Dont get me wrong the Mark 4 is a great tank which im sure most countries would love to own them. But I cant say its combat proven.

[edit on 23-8-2004 by ShadowXIX]

posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 09:45 PM
Why are you comparing the T-72 and T-34, they are completely different designs. The Merkava Mk 4 is an upgrade on the Mk 3, which in an upgrade on the Mk 2, and so on.There is not any major design change between that changes the operational capabilities of the tank, strategic and tactical, yes.

And the tanks are not supposed to fight other tanks, they are heavy cavalry. They are supposed to be both mobile and survivable, and used accordingly, that job may or may not involve fighting other tanks. Heavy cavalry is just good against heavy cavalry, fighting each other is not just their job.

Fighting infantry is also part of a tank's task, something which the Merkava is very good at.

posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 10:04 PM
Well maybe the T-34 to T-72 was not a good example. A better example would be the T-64 to the T-84

every tank of the Soviet T-series entering service ever since the T-64 (including T-72 and its modifications, T-80, T-80U, T-80UD, Ukrainian T-84, etc) was based on the design concepts initially introduced in the T-64 tank design.

So these are all improved versions of the T-64 design. I would not say a T-84 was combat proven because a T-64 fought in combat.

posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 04:37 PM
No, you can't say that.

But guess what? The Merkava is the Merkava and the T series is the T series.

posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 10:12 AM
the merkava is much better. for example in 2004 one merkava 4 roled over a 100 kilo mine, got blasted 20 feet into the air and received no damage except for a few small dents, and also is has been seeing combat day in and day out since its production and never has one been destroyed. it has the same weponry as the abrams, but more shells, and can fire faste, can hold more people, has better armor, is safer, and has better mortars
i give it

posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 10:40 AM
So you're telling me that 220 pounds of explosives, threw a 63-65 ton tank 20 FEET into the air, and said tank didn't receive damage. Riiiiiight.

posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 12:32 PM
Yep, that story is unbelievable. Sorry, it´s more or less a physical impossibility that a tank hit by an exlosive force that could sent it flyng 20 feet in the air would not suffer extensive damage, both from the explosion as well as the ground impact - not even counting in that the crew most certainly would be knocked out, wounded or even killed.

I´m not going to join the tank v. tank discussion, but I have top say a few things: First, IF the Merk.4 carries these infantrymen , it has a GREATLY reduced ammunition reserve. Second, there ARE reports that indicate that the front mounted engine has a negative effect on the balancing, and thus the Merk.4 has limitations in mobility. Third, there is no "T-series" of Russian tanks. "Txx" is the russian prefix for ALL tanks, like the USA uses "F" as prefix to fighter aircraft or "B" for bombers.

posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 08:44 PM

Originally posted by Kozzy
And no, the M1A2 has never seen combat in a "war". It missed the entire invasion section of OIF because the 4th Infantry got held up in Turkey. Now it's doing the same thing the all the series of the Merkavas are doing, fighting insurgents.

[edit on 22-8-2004 by Kozzy]

Friendly fire destroyed at least one US Army M1A2 Abrams MBT in OIF. According to a briefing by Lt Colonel Bob Lovett, prepared for the US Armor Center Ft Knox Kentucky, a tank of B Troop 3rd Squadron 7th Cavalry Regiment was knocked out at night 24/25 March near Najaf. First investigation in the field suspected the 'kill' as result of enemy action firing
the new Russian Kornet ATGW, but further examination revealed that the damage was from a 25mm Bushmaster cannon, firing eight AP-DU rounds into the rear engine compartment penetrating the engine grills. The same report mentioned another M1A2 Abrams damaged by unidentified source, possibly another US tank firing a 120mm round.

This is the source:

posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 01:39 AM

Originally posted by UK Wizard
the tanks i heard about were ambushed from buildings by rebel iraqi's with RPG's, nobody was killed inside the tank, the armour took the blast well

i think the hits were to the sides


[edit on 21-8-2004 by UK Wizard]

If you want more info, please read my post: Dorchester Shermans Vs Tiger&King Tiger


posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 11:00 AM
If the merkava4 is so great, how come we saw many of them ablaze in huge balls of fire in those south lebaneze fields on the news so recently?

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 12:45 AM
reply to post by FredT

ok... give me some examples of where the eletronics in the abrams surpass the Israeli design.... reply with videos to show me. look at youtube merkava 4. then look at abrams.

one plus for the merkava is the ability to shoot down helis with cannon rounds. see:

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 05:03 AM
The Merkava is a pretty good tank. The Abrams is better at straight up tank vs tank combat; it's up there with the best of 'em, the Challenger 2, Leopard 2, (and maybe the leclerc, and the latest domestic T-90) IMO, the Merkava is certainly the better looking of the two.

The Merkava is quite likely the better tank for fighting in cities; it carries the same gun, but also carries a 60mm mortar and can carry a few soldiers around in the rear. it's also got a removable under body armor kit, for mines and IEDs. it's kind of slow for a tank, it's only got as much engine power as the Chally 2, but it's even heavier.

They were taking pretty heavy losses in Lebanon (18 tanks knocked out by missiles, 10 completely destroyed, 2 more completely destroyed by IEDs.), but they were having better munitions shot at them than the US generally faces in Iraq. Tandem-charge warheads are still very rare in Iraq, and both the Abrahms and Merkava do very well against single charge warheads.

The Merkava is sometimes now equipped with the Trophy point defense system, but that's not yet combat-proven equipment, like russsia's ARENA.

So basically, Abrams tanks would most likely beat Mekravas in a fight, but Mekravas would probably be better than Abrams tanks at what we're currently using Abrams tanks for. Seeing as how they were designed for the purpose.

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 06:33 AM
RPG-7VR , which is in widespread use in iraq uses a tandem HEAT warhead , and i still believe the RPG-29 has seen action in iraq and has killed not only M1A2`s but also challenger 2`s as well.

and that is the Merkava busted open by an RPG-29

[edit on 4/6/08 by Harlequin]

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 07:44 AM

Originally posted by Kozzy

Originally posted by namehere

Originally posted by UK WizardBRITISH CHALLENGER 2 KICKS A$$

fastest and most heavily armored tank around, i'd love to see one in action.

It's actually one of the slowest tanks in action, it's 1200 horsepower Perkins diesel engine doesn't match up to the 1500 horsepower turbines and diesels of the other tanks.

You're right about the armor though. It has something like 500mm all around.

Challenger2 is the 2nd fastest tank off-road, with Leclerc being the fastest, this is due to hydro-gas suspension.
Also Challengers engine can be re-mapped to produce more power and torque! A common feature on modern tanks...
Challenger2 is also the most heavily armoured tank in the world, with only 2 being damaged and 1 being destroyed by friendly fire.
Here is a pic for fun:
85tonnes of pure British beef, with added ied/mine protection.

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 08:10 AM
reply to post by SKUNK2

except that 2 have now been breached by RPG-29`s , killing 1 driver and blowing teh foot off another.

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by SKUNK2

except that 2 have now been breached by RPG-29`s , killing 1 driver and blowing teh foot off another.

I don't know where you got your info! It is slightly wrong.
A RPG-29 did breach a CR2, but only on 1 occasion, the driver lost some toes. Another time a EFP was detonated under the tank, the driver lost a leg.
On both of these occasions CR2 was damaged from hits on the belly(RPG bounced of the ground and exploded under the CR2). As you can see in the pic i posted CR2 has a new armour package on the front (toe) of the tank, this upgrade also includes IED/mine protection similar to that of the new Leo2's and Merkavas. CR2 has also recieved numerous upgrades under the "street fighter" and "clip" upgrade programmes.

Challenger2 is the best tank in the world, only one has ever been destroyed... by FF.
Two HESH rounds were fired at this CR2. The CR2 was mistaken for an enemy bunker(Bad visibility and crap optics at the time), as 2 crew were climbing in and out of the tank. The first HESH hit the turret setting fire to 2 crewmen, the second shot landed inside the commanders open hatch detonating the ammunition and completely destroying the tank.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by SKUNK2]

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 09:47 AM
The info i got re chally 2 was on ATS , the media and the internet - and im sorry but youre wrong - the hit was a direct hit to the front and breached the era in the first instance , and the second , breached the toe armour - from your first picture.

the whole thing about the chally 2 penetration was it had both armour increases fitted

the side and lower front armour boxes were fitted around 2002/2003 and the slat armour to the rear was fitted around 2006 ; fritz (ex army with all the contacts) has reliably informed me that the `toe` armour was allready fitted to the vehicles that were hit , replacing the era previously fitted.

and we have had this discussion allready , 6 months ago.

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 05:57 AM
reply to post by Harlequin

The reports are wrong only one RPG-29 breached CR2. The CR2 was fitted with the old ERA toe package. The new package was specificly designed with IED/mine protection, the boffins who made the package also had to give CR2 more ground clearance to fit the new armour.

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 06:18 AM
so an ex instructor who see`s his friends who still serve in the `green welly brigade` is wrong.....

posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 02:31 AM

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in