[Rodion]

I was talking to a member the other day and it hit me: most people think Israel uses M1Abrams battle tanks. Well, we don't. Saying so is an insult to Israeli engineers. We have better. Gentelmen, I give you:

Builder Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works Group
Weight 65 tons
Length 9.04 meters (with gun forward)
Width (without skirts) 3.72 meters
Propulsion Electric Motor
Maximum speed 92 km/h (57 mph)
Height to turret roof 2.66 meters
Crew 4: Driver, commander, gunner, loader
Maximum speed Over 60km/h
Cross-country speed Up to 55km/h
Maximum range 500 km
Main gun 120mm
Ammunition on board 48 rounds
Read-to-fire rounds 10 rounds
Machine gun 7.62 mm
Mortar 60 mm
Mortar range 2,700 meters

World's only MBT with a forward mounted engine

World's only MBT capable of carrying an infantry squad or performing crew/ casualty extrication under battlefield conditions

Fully integrated digital battlefield information recording and distribution system

Capable of launching LAHAT 120mm thru-tube laser guided ATGM

Merkava 4

No country in the world is more synonymous with armored warfare than Israel. And with good reason: no country is more dependent for its very survival on the quality of its armored formations. Thus armed with the experience of almost 30 years of tank warfare, and with full knowledge of its needs, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has come up with a marvel of tank engineering that boasts firsts in a number of categories: the world's only Main Battle Tank (MBT) with a forward mounted engine, and the world's only MBT capable of carrying an infantry squad or performing crew/ casualty extrication under battlefield conditions, to name a few. And that's not mentioning its impressive array of weaponry, and its fully integrated battlefield information recording and distribution system. Meet the Merkava, a tank that truly belongs in the digital age.

[MB.]

The Merkava is a death trap.

So are the Centeruions, M48s and M60s the Israelis use.

They should go Abrams or go bust.

We have better.

False.

Edit: I love how everyone calls the design 'inovative' while ignoring the dangers to putting an engine in the front of the tank, loading it full of passangers like and APC, and driving it around without modern anti-missile systems.

Second Edit: Can you say shot-trap above the Glacias plate? Hit the turret just below the main gun and bam- no more engine.

Third Edit: Lolz Isreal doesn't even build them. Ha!

[Boondock Saint]

Saying so is an insult to Israeli engineers.

Builder Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works Group

Lockheed Martin is apparently an American company ...

I would like to echo what Bill said about the shot trap design, for some reason it reminds me a crabs underbelly ... no doubt it looks coolio, however a proper MBT would fucking knock that sumbitch out.

No country in the world is more synonymous with armored warfare than Israel.

Give to them by other nations ... this MBT was not the tank used by Israel during its famed armor battles.

Merkava is perfect for what Israel uses it for ... crushing peasant militia.

[Smilin' Dave]

Does Merkeva 4 use Chobham composite or something similar? I have a feeling the answer is no, in which case the armour will not compare well with a Challenger or Abrams.

Will having a tank that can carry a small squad really be that handy in a proper battle? I would have thought a dedicated HAPC like the Nagmashot would have been a much better idea.

On shot traps: Don't modern AT rounds use soft caps to grip the surface a target on impact (limiting deflection)?

[Boondock Saint]

I think for what Israel does having a squad sized compliment of infantry is perfect ... I mean think about the small streets over there, the limited amount of resources that Israel possesses and the limited capabilities of their enemy.

Why not have a vehicle that can provide protected, fire support and transportation all in one?

It beats the poop out of an armored convoy of MBTs, APCs and light armored support vehicles.

Of course place that thing on a proper battlefiled and it's facing MBTs that are specifically designed to destroy other tanks ... the Merkava is designed to support infantry and suppress peasants and engage armor though not domninate MBTs ...

It woudl get fucking pwnd.

[Smilin' Dave]

I think for what Israel does having a squad sized compliment of infantry is perfect ... I mean think about the small streets over there, the limited amount of resources that Israel possesses and the limited capabilities of their enemy.

Why not have a vehicle that can provide protected, fire support and transportation all in one?

The problem with the Merkeva doing all of the jobs is that it it would doing all those jobs at once difficult. Being a transport undermines its protection, it can't efficient be fire support and transport at the same time etc.

Seems too much like having all your eggs in one basket when there are situations when two baskets with half the eggs would be more useful.

[Boondock Saint]

Seems too much like having all your eggs in one basket

Not when facing peasants with AKs and RPGs ... when thats the dilly, its perfect.

[MB.]

On shot traps: Don't modern AT rounds use soft caps to grip the surface a target on impact (limiting deflection)?

Read: Tungsten Sabots. Kenetic, high deflection, shot fucking trapped.

[Smilin' Dave]

Not when facing peasants with AKs and RPGs ... when thats the dilly, its perfect.

The Palestinians have used IEDs on occasion. Losing one vehicle in a convoy is one thing, losing one that is doing 2-3 jobs is another.

Further, when driving around in dense urban terrain, I don't think an MBT is the way to go, it isn't agile enough, practically blind and it isn't designed as an infantry fighting platform.

[Rodion]

Well I like it! Hey, I'm no expert on vehicles, so I won't argue with you. I just know Merkava 4 is considered the best MBT in the world today.
Here's one source from many.


1. Merkava 4 was developed completely in Israel.

2. The armor composition is classified.

3. Calling Palestinian militants "armed peasants" is hardly accurate. They have military training camps and everything.

[jaakko]

Edit: I love how everyone calls the design 'inovative' while ignoring the dangers to putting an engine in the front of the tank, loading it full of passangers like and APC, and driving it around without modern anti-missile systems.

Well the idea was that by putting the engine in the front it would put the engine in a greater danger than the crew. It doesn't carry a full squad, just a few soldiers if need be. What do you mean by modern anti-missile systems? If you mean something like ARENA which are meant to actually stop the oncoming missile, I don't think many Western MBTs have such anyway.

Second Edit: Can you say shot-trap above the Glacias plate? Hit the turret just below the main gun and bam- no more engine.

How so?

Does Merkeva 4 use Chobham composite or something similar? I have a feeling the answer is no, in which case the armour will not compare well with a Challenger or Abrams.

All modern MBTs have composite armour of some sort. Chobham isn't that special, though it was when it was new.

Read: Tungsten Sabots. Kenetic, high deflection, shot fucking trapped.

I think this has been taken into consideration. Why else would've they kept uparmoring their Merkavas, if that would reduce its protection? I don't know, but a Leopard 2 crew member once told me that sabots don't deflect much, and that he wouldn't be less worried if a modern sabot round hit his turret's side from a high angle.

2. The armor composition is classified.

But generally estimated to be among the very top in the world.

3. Calling Palestinian militants "armed peasants" is hardly accurate. They have military training camps and everything.

Even the best only have small arms and RPGs. The old and most common HEAT round for RPG-7 penetrates about 330mm, which probably isn't enough against the newest Merkavas even if hit from behind. The one Merkava3 they knocked out was destroyed by digging a big hole in the ground, putting some big concrete pipe in it and filling it with tens of kilos of explosives (many estimates go around 100kg). Not the most practical anti-tank technique, or something that could be employed very widely.

I just know Merkava 4 is considered the best MBT in the world today.

On this point I have to agree with the other posters. Saying some MBT model is "the best in the world" is very likely an exaggeration. The best MBTs in the world are in many respects different, and can't compared very easily.

[Boondock Saint]

The old and most common HEAT round for RPG-7 penetrates about 330mm, which probably isn't enough against the newest Merkavas

I have been told by US soldiers that this round is greatly over rated in its power to penetrate. Up-armored Humvees have been hit square on the side by these and have been able to survive. Bradleys have also been known to shrug these off, I should think most MBTs should be able to do the same.

Of course we all know there are weak points on every vehicle (crew hatch, engine, etc) but the point stands.

[jaakko]

I have been told by US soldiers that this round is greatly over rated in its power to penetrate. Up-armored Humvees have been hit square on the side by these and have been able to survive. Bradleys have also been known to shrug these off, I should think most MBTs should be able to do the same.

It's not necessarily over-rated. I think the max penetration is calculated for the most ideal conditions. But in order to gain that maximum penetration, it must hit in 90 degree angle. That's quite rare, and the more there is angle the less there's penetration. In the worst case it may even deflect. I've seen some pics of armored Humvess after being hit with an RPG. But in those cases I've seen they've obviously been hit by a shrapnel HE round, not the HEAT one. I've seen both being widely used by the Iraqis.

I don't know much about Bradleys but they've been uparmored too. Protection in the front could very well come close to 200mm against HEAT in the most heavily armoured versions, and some carry ERA.

[Boondock Saint]

Having spoken to US soldiers who were in the humvee in Iraq I have come to the conclusion that a properly designed humvee may very well be the ideal light armor urban warfare vehicle.

I have even heard of plans for an enclosed turret model for the humvee ...

J.

Right, variables ... I would also think the quality of the manufacturer of the weapon might influence the penetration capability of the warhead as well.

Angle and so on, you are correct of course. However as I understand it the number one weapon that the US troops fear is the IED, particularly the 150mm shells tied into two smaller shells all stacked by the roadside.

That would pretty much knock out just about anything anyone could put on the road ...

[jaakko]

Having spoken to US soldiers who were in the humvee in Iraq I have come to the conclusion that a properly designed humvee may very well be the ideal light armor urban warfare vehicle.

No doubt. There's no practical way of making a light vehicle which would be 100% proof against RPGs.

Right, variables ... I would also think the quality of the manufacturer of the weapon might influence the penetration capability of the warhead as well.

Ja! And in Iraq you can find rounds from pretty much every manufacturer.

Angle and so on, you are correct of course. However as I understand it the number one weapon that the US troops fear is the IED, particularly the 150mm shells tied into two smaller shells all stacked by the roadside.

That would pretty much knock out just about anything anyone could put on the road ...

Ya but I'd bet you'd be owned if you were hit by an RPG HEAT round while in a Hummer. It's just not wise. If you shoot an RPG at a convoy you'll end up with a firefight. That means casualties with a high propability. With mines it's very different!

[Boondock Saint]

Well it all depends on how many trucks (hummers) the patrol has J. and what your intent is.

If you just want to mess with a patrol and kill some troops then the IED is the way to go. If you want to actually engage and destroy the enemy then a proper ambush is the way to go ...

The problem of course is that a proper convoy of light armor, light support and god forbid (for the ambushers) proper armor any ambush prettty much means death for the ambusher ...

Of course this is something we all know and takes the thread a bit off topic.

[PolarBear]

No country in the world is more synonymous with armored warfare than Israel.

This is the funniest thing in this thread.

I love it how Israelis overrate themsevles, they got a bunch of crap in their army and consider it the best in the world, maybe only in the middle east. But then again Syria is acuiring some nice battle mechanics and weaponary.

[Boondock Saint]

This is the funniest thing in this thread.

I agree actually ... when I think of armor I think of Germany and the Soviet Union. I mean really ... I definitly do not place Israel up on the top of that list.

[Rodion]

I understand that nobody here likes Merkava 4, the best fighting vehicle of all time (this is where a patriotic smiley should have been) and frankly, I don't mind. We'll agree to disagree.

PolarBear wrote:

I love it how Israelis overrate themsevles, they got a bunch of crap in their army and consider it the best in the world, maybe only in the middle east. But then again Syria is acuiring some nice battle mechanics and weaponary.

Coming from a Russian, that sounds a little weird. Either way, Israel isn't the only country that considers IDF the best army in the world, next maybe to the US army. IDF has yet to lose a war.

P.S. Yeah, yeah, the glorious Syrian fighters will crush the dirty zhidi with the super advanced Russian gear they just got. They had their shot when they had allies and the IDF barely had aircraft.

[Smilin' Dave]

I tend to think of the Israelis as good armour commanders. They consistantly out did their Arab opponents with what were essentially crappier tanks. For example up-gunned Shermans vs. T-55s. In fact the most serious error the Israelis made was to take armoured warfare too far, leaving them short of infantry to support the tanks in 1973.

This is not something that can be said of the Soviets, whose bout with armoured warfare against the Germans in WWII didn't leave them looking superior at all.