Which is Better? M1A2 or Merkava 4

What Tank do you think is the best, or your favorite?

Israel's Tank has a cooler more aerodynamic look to it, but that dont mean much when your in the desert, and its actually slower then the Abram.

Merkava 4 - info & Pics

Abram - info & Pics




Or
www.israeli-weapons.com...


[edit on 21-8-2004 by John bull 1]

I don't know but the merkava looks cooler

M1A2 hands down. The Merkeva tank is very capable, but the Abrams has proven itself to be quite dominant on the battlefield given its electronics and armor package

this has been done to death so many times

is it true that American main battle tanks are getting blown up by RPG's in iraq???? or is it the light tanks, sources i find just say tanks

I think merkava 4 is better suited for city warfare (like other merkavas, due this 60mm mortar) but its lighter armored than M1A2. Merkava 4 is few years newer than M1A2 so it uses some newer technologies. I think that Merkava 4 is the same standard as M1A2, but M1A3 will be slightly better.
You say M1A2 is eing blown by RPG's? It is possible but only if you hit rear or top armor in place unprotected by reactive armor, so you need LOT of luck. But it is more possible they are mobility killed, by hitting track with rpg, its quite possible. But such tank can be easily repaired if not captured by enemy.

[edit on 21-8-2004 by Adam_S]

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

BRITISH CHALLENGER 2 KICKS A$$


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

Set the situation up

Is it a platoon of M1A2SEPs running into a platoon of Merkava Mk 4s?
In that case, there's almost nothing between the two tanks that would give them any advantage. Except the M289A3, I don't have any info on the Israeli rounds.

If you're moving into an urban enviroment the Merkava has a clear advantage, with it's superior side, top, and rear armor and ability to carry a fire team of soldiers.

And all Abrams put out of action in Iraq were from hits to the engine deck, where the armor is very light. The Challenger, Leo, and Leclerc, and T-90 would all be mobility killed here too. And the Abrams doesn't use reactive armor.

[edit on 21-8-2004 by Kozzy]

Originally posted by Adam_S
I think merkava 4 is better suited for city warfare (like other merkavas, due this 60mm mortar) but its lighter armored than M1A2. Merkava 4 is few years newer than M1A2 so it uses some newer technologies. I think that Merkava 4 is the same standard as M1A2, but M1A3 will be slightly better.
You say M1A2 is eing blown by RPG's? It is possible but only if you hit rear or top armor in place unprotected by reactive armor, so you need LOT of luck. But it is more possible they are mobility killed, by hitting track with rpg, its quite possible. But such tank can be easily repaired if not captured by enemy.

[edit on 21-8-2004 by Adam_S]

M1A3? No such thing

Originally posted by UK WizardBRITISH CHALLENGER 2 KICKS A$$

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

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.

I like the looks of the Merkeva, but give me a Challenger or Abrams any day. They have been proven good in real combat.

Blowing up houses and what not with the Merkeva is not much to be impressed about

Does anyone notice that the Merkava looks quite a bit like the Soviet T72/80 with the extremely sloped armour? For such a huge turret,it must be cramped inside.
The Isralies must have more respect for the Russian tank than they would admit.
"You have to hit the Russian tanks dead on."2IC

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I like the looks of the Merkeva, but give me a Challenger or Abrams any day. They have been proven good in real combat.

Blowing up houses and what not with the Merkeva is not much to be impressed about

THE MERKAVA WAS PROVEN IN "REAL" COMBAT, 1982 in Lebanon. The Merk 1 made jokes of Syrian T-72s, with their 105mm guns. There are instances of the Merkava taking multiple Saggers to be destroyed.

Not to mention it get's shot at almost every day.

Originally posted by Kozzy

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I like the looks of the Merkeva, but give me a Challenger or Abrams any day. They have been proven good in real combat.

Blowing up houses and what not with the Merkeva is not much to be impressed about

THE MERKAVA WAS PROVEN IN "REAL" COMBAT, 1982 in Lebanon. The Merk 1 made jokes of Syrian T-72s, with their 105mm guns. There are instances of the Merkava taking multiple Saggers to be destroyed.

Not to mention it get's shot at almost every day.

Im talking about the Merkava 4. Thats the one this thread is talking about

So? The Merkava Mk 1 saw combat and did well, so that means the Merkava Mk 4 must be even better.

You must not be impressed with the M1A2, because it hasn't seen any combat. It wasn't involved in OIF till the counter insurgency stage.

The Merk 4 is a complete redesign of the Merk 1 design they are nothing alike it cannot be compared to the M1A1 and M1A2.Thats like comparing a T-34 too a T-72 apples and oranges.

The M1A2 and M1A1 have both seen real combat something the Merk 4 cannot claim.

Uhh, the Merkava Mk 4 is the same design, if it wasn't they would call it something different. It just has more armor, a bigger powerpack, better electroincs, and a better loading system. OOOO REAL DIFFERENT

Even so, they wouldn't make it worse

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]

Originally posted by Kozzy
Uhh, the Merkava Mk 4 is the same design, if it wasn't they would call it something different. It just has more armor, a bigger powerpack, better electroincs, and a better loading system. OOOO REAL DIFFERENT

Even so, they wouldn't make it worse

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. And as if getting shot at with RPGs isn't a "war"

It's still being shot at by a real live enemy, aka it's combat.

[edit on 22-8-2004 by Kozzy]

The Merk 4 is not the same design it shares a name with the Merk 1 and thats about it.

Mark1 105mm main gun
Mark4 120mm main gun

Mark1 900hp engine
Mark4 1,500hp engine

Mark1 Transmission semi-automatic
Mark4 automatic,5gear

Mark1 Turret control Hydraulic
Mark4 turret control electrical advanced

Mark 1 armor ballistic protection
Merk 4 armor modular special armor,including roof protection and improved coverage protection.

All that stuff is what makes a tank it is very different. I could say a T-34 is the same as a T-92 it just has a better gun ,armor,turret control, etc.... It is still a T series so it must be the same design or they would have changed the name instead of just changing the number. That does not make much sense

the list goes on and on the mark 1 went into service in 1979. the mark4 is a advanced version of the mark3. the mark3 came into service in 1990

[edit on 22-8-2004 by ShadowXIX]

[edit on 22-8-2004 by ShadowXIX]

It's just improvements to a proven design. Stop arguing semantics, the Merkava is a combat proven tank.