Merkava Mk4 vs. Abrams M1A2

About the Merkava's and Leclerc's modular armor, they say they are the only one to provide this, but the Abram's armor is modular as well. That's how they upgraded from M1 to M1A1 and to M1A2.

About the Challenger's protection, it's frontal protection is more or less equal to the M1A2 while it's all around protection is better (almost 500mm all around!!) this is why no Challenger's have been lost to RPGs. I don't rank it high because of it's engine, which is underpowered and from what I hear, unreliable. Plus, it's C3 systems are lacking when compared to other tanks. You're wrong about the CHallenger, it's rifled gun offers a better accuracy and velocity then smoothbore guns, it's ammo offers about 850mm of penetration.

About the L55 gun on the Leo, it doesn't do anything a M256 with DU ammo doesn't do. The M829A3 is the best APFSDS out there, providing even more penetration then the DM-53 when fired form the L55. This is because DU is a much superior material for this sort of thing.

The Merkava's gun is home made in Israel, I don't know much about it. And the Merkava Mk 3 was not eaten alive in Yom Kippur war, it was inferior
Israel tanks such as the M60 and Shermans. The Merkava has always stood up to RPGs and the Merkava Mk 4 probably can stand a hit from an AT-3 along the flanks!!. The Merkava's fire control is a derivitive of the one on an F-15, so it must be good.

The Leclerc has much less internal space then any other tank, meaning they can slap a lot more armor on it for a lot less weight. But you're right, the UAE have complained a lot about reliability problems with the fire control (crashes) and auto-loader.

Pretty close

Rifled guns are great for urban warfare (HESH still is relevant there). In the open desert though, the Chally 2 will be the first NATO tank to be rendered obsolete by an advance in armor. A rifled gun should be longer to take full advantage of KE rounds as they develop.

As for armor the M1A1 isn't well enough protected, but the Chally 2 can still be killed by an exceptionally moto and well trained grunt... or a fanatical militia man with 2 AT4s and a trained monkey to fire in volley.

The M256 gets the job done just fine, but the extra length of the Leo2's gun means it will be more effective with KE rounds against stronger armor.

Fire controls systems seem pretty similiar. A lot of borrowing must have happened. Leclerc will be the new standard system once the bugs are worked out. I think NATO is just letting the French foot the bill before they steal the finished product.


The perfect MBT for NATO is an M1A2SEP with a Dorchester armor upgrade. The next step for development is the upcoming tubrine improvement, and the Leclerc fire control and autoloader just as soon as the frogs fix it.

The perfect urban tank is a Merkava with a smaller rifled gun, and perhaps the addition of a 25mm machine cannon as well. (and of course data-sharing with helocopters to allow remote targeting of buildings... to move into a hot city square and start laying down HESH with no delay for targeting.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by gastric cancer
U.S M1 Tank was easily destoried in Iraq by Chinese 70s' anti-tank missile(HJ-8)exported to Iraq in 80s.

So...

Actually the US only lost 4 tanks in desert storm so i dont kno wt ur talking bout back it up with some facts and no crew members were killed and the abrams destroyed 4.000+ T-72 some T-80 its even superior to the T-90 so whats better loosing 4 tanks or loosing 4.000+ and in desert storm the A1 were used not the more advanced A2 the merkava is no match for the M1A2 abrams here's the link read for yourself

M1A2 undisputed champion no other tank can match its kill ratio.
M1A2 Abrams

[edit on 17-6-2004 by WestPoint23]

Dear sir,
There were no T-80 series of tanks in Iraq, and the only T-72's that they have had were the T-72M's, which were the ones of the first T-72 models ever produced.
So, compering T-72M with M1A1HA or A2 is like compering T-55 with the WW2 Sherman Tank. Beides, most of the Tank kills in the first and second Gulf Wars were made be the A-10's, AH-64's, AH-1's, and OH-58D's.

The L55 gun, the L55 firing the latest German shell, the DM-53 achieves 810mm penetration at 2km. This is in comparison to the L44 firing M829A3 which achieves 960mm of penetration. So, I do not cite the L55 gun as an advantage in the form it is used now.

HESH isn't any better for urban warfare then HEAT, which has better fragmentation characteristics. Of course then you want a pure HE-FRAG round.

And also, the rifled gun on the Chally is longer then the L44 gun. L30 isn't it's length, Lxx is just the designation Britain gives to it's hardware. The reason I rate the Chally low is because it's underpowered and it's C3 lacks(which I consider extremely imporant).

About your improvements to the M1A2SEP. The "Dorchester" armor is coming with the M1A3 apparently. About the fire control, the Abrams has the best fire control and optics, beating out the Leclerc. Also, I don't think an auto-loader is needed at all, tankers like having a 4th man to help with maintainence and a backup man and a human loader can slam shells faster and more reliably then any auto-loader. A good loader can slam a shell every 4 seconds, while the figures for the Leclerc say 5 (which I don't believe).

And Kaskad, while it is true airpower destroyed a lot of tanks. There were numerous battles fought, where Bradleys and Abrams found themselves without air support well within the range of Iraqi weapons. This happened in The master gunner I spoke to destroyed a T-55 at 500m, at that range a 100mm gun can penetrate an Abrams. Also, at 73 Easting a armored cavalry troop, that's 9 abrams and 12 Bradleys destroyed an entire Iraqi brigade in 23 minutes at point blank with no air or artillery support. Also I should mention that at 73 Easting, the Iraqis were not demoralized, they continued to fight after the initial shock effect, and even counter attacked. The infantry even stayed to get close enough to the US forces to fire their small arms at RPGs at them.

[edit on 21-6-2004 by Kozzy]

It seems like every time I open my mouth I'm at least partially wrong, but I think I can cram a bit more boot into my mouth so here goes.

Isn't the DM53 a tungsten penetrator? I gathered that from the discussion at the strategy page. The problem then would be the munition, not the muzzle energy.

As for the Leclerc's optics and fire control... is it simply an inferior system, or do bugs play a role in that? You've turned me against the auto-loader, but I'm curious if there is a fire control system in existance that can outgrow the M1A2 eventually.

As for HESH vs HEFRAG, it sounds to me like against threats concealed in a building, the HESH could be more devastating. Am I wrong here? I can see a flexibility problem though... HESH wouldn't be as effective in the open, when there was no structure to spall.



As for the post that claimed that airpower did all the work, I read an interesting quote in John Antal's book The Combat Team. It was from an Iraqi officer who said "I started the war with (60?) tanks. after 31 days of airstrikes, I still had (58?). After 20 minutes with the M1A1, I had none."
Tanks are the most economical anti-tank weapon, ESPECIALLY against inferior tanks. In a vacuum, (barring infantry in tough terrain or artilley getting involved) M1A2s could outmanuever and turkey-shoot T-72 for as long as their rounds and fuel held out. In real life, the M1A2 engages from outside the reach of almost all widely distributed Russian Tanks or shoulder fired AT weapons, allowing them to provide an outstanding base of fire for a combined arms assault when artillery is not available.

As for the post that claimed that airpower did all the work, I read an interesting quote in John Antal's book The Combat Team. It was from an Iraqi officer who said "I started the war with (60?) tanks. after 31 days of airstrikes, I still had (58?). After 20 minutes with the M1A1, I had none."

And how did he stay alive ? I mean damn, he lost all of his tanks (58 of them) and somehow got out alive
I've also read a "book" in which Iraqis claimed to have destroyed 5 M1 tanks (or was it more than 5 ?) in a surprise attack.
They turned turrets on their T-62 tanks back, and put white flags on top of them, and prosided to the US positions, anyway, when they got close, they turned their turrets forward and opened fire at the US tanks, almost at a point blank range, and destroyed all of them...
Is there anything wrong with this story ? sounds like BS doesn't it ?
Don't believe everything you read/see on TV.

regards.

A market research company, Forecast International, ranks the tanks in the following order:

1. Leopard 2 A6EX
2. M1A2 Abrams (System Enhancement Package Version)
3. Mitsubishi Type 90
4. Merkava Mark IV

I'd be interested in seeing a copy of their report, mainly to see the testing criteria, but the press release is at:

www.forecast1.com...

-koji K.

Originally posted by kaskad

As for the post that claimed that airpower did all the work, I read an interesting quote in John Antal's book The Combat Team. It was from an Iraqi officer who said "I started the war with (60?) tanks. after 31 days of airstrikes, I still had (58?). After 20 minutes with the M1A1, I had none."

And how did he stay alive ? I mean damn, he lost all of his tanks (58 of them) and somehow got out alive

I've also read a "book" in which Iraqis claimed to have destroyed 5 M1 tanks (or was it more than 5 ?) in a surprise attack.
They turned turrets on their T-62 tanks back, and put white flags on top of them, and prosided to the US positions, anyway, when they got close, they turned their turrets forward and opened fire at the US tanks, almost at a point blank range, and destroyed all of them...
Is there anything wrong with this story ? sounds like BS doesn't it ?
Don't believe everything you read/see on TV.

regards.

There was only one M1A1 penetrated by Iraqi direct fire in the entire war, a T-72 got a flank shot on the turret bustle which caused an ammo detonation. The crew was uninjured and destroyed the attacking T-72 with the round in the tube.

Also, what the Iraqi officer said was true. Except he had 21 tanks at the start of the war, 18 after the air strikes and 0 after an encounter with an American armored company. Just because all of his tank's were destroyed doesn't mean he died, he could have bailed out of his tank before it was hit, or did not die when he was was hit.

And the Forecast ratings are bull#.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
It seems like every time I open my mouth I'm at least partially wrong, but I think I can cram a bit more boot into my mouth so here goes.

Isn't the DM53 a tungsten penetrator? I gathered that from the discussion at the strategy page. The problem then would be the munition, not the muzzle energy.

As for the Leclerc's optics and fire control... is it simply an inferior system, or do bugs play a role in that? You've turned me against the auto-loader, but I'm curious if there is a fire control system in existance that can outgrow the M1A2 eventually.

As for HESH vs HEFRAG, it sounds to me like against threats concealed in a building, the HESH could be more devastating. Am I wrong here? I can see a flexibility problem though... HESH wouldn't be as effective in the open, when there was no structure to spall.



As for the post that claimed that airpower did all the work, I read an interesting quote in John Antal's book The Combat Team. It was from an Iraqi officer who said "I started the war with (60?) tanks. after 31 days of airstrikes, I still had (58?). After 20 minutes with the M1A1, I had none."
Tanks are the most economical anti-tank weapon, ESPECIALLY against inferior tanks. In a vacuum, (barring infantry in tough terrain or artilley getting involved) M1A2s could outmanuever and turkey-shoot T-72 for as long as their rounds and fuel held out. In real life, the M1A2 engages from outside the reach of almost all widely distributed Russian Tanks or shoulder fired AT weapons, allowing them to provide an outstanding base of fire for a combined arms assault when artillery is not available.

The fire control system on the Leclerc isn't bad, it just has bugs needed to work. It just does not have a capability no other modern tank has.

Yes, the DM-53 is a tungsten round so the problem is the shell. But that's why I don't state it at an advantage for the Leo, because the Germans don't use DU penetrators. Plus you can't just stick an American, French, or Israeli DU shell into an L55, it needs to be redesigned according to the tube.

About the discussion on HESH vs FRAG. HESH would blow through concrete more effectively but lacks real anti-infantry capabilities in the open. You can still blow through concrete with HE-FRAG, plus lots of threats are in windows. Apparently the MPATS round worked incredibly well in the Thunder run for Baghdad.

I'm going away for 3 weeks so I won't be able to respond to this thread. See ya.

The Abrams speed and fire control systems are the best in the world in both desert storms the Abrams proved much superior and in both wars no Abrams crew members were killed when they faced Iraqi tanks.

So what do you think about the future tank concepts? Unmanned turret with autoloader, front placed engine, lighter tanks, 3 man crew...
And what about the guns? Do you think future tanks should have cheaper and more proven conventional 140 mm gun (Germans) or more powerfull thermal-electric gun with liquid propellant (US, Israel)?

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The Abrams speed and fire control systems are the best in the world in both desert storms the Abrams proved much superior and in both wars no Abrams crew members were killed when they faced Iraqi tanks.

Although the success of Desert Storm was stellar, it proved very little about the Abrams over other modern tanks. Now we know what happens when 3rd generation tanks engage 2nd generation tanks with poorly trained crews in a perfect environment.

We have no way of knowing what would happen if the enemy could see and kill us from the same range we can see and kill him. Right now our commanders can afford mistakes and the enemy can't, and we fought an enemy whos lack of training made them prone to mistakes.

but we have no enemy who can fire and see us at the ranges that we can see them so we dont have to fear that

Couple of comments. FCS of M-1A2/Challenger2/Canadian LEOC2 are all the same components ...all made in Canada. Canadians using their tanks have regularly beaten Americans in M-1A1s in battle , although I don't know if thats a case of superior canadian FCS or inferior american training [more likely].

Dorchester armor is reported to be on Challenger-2 and is also thought to be on M-1A2SEP. A officer who witnessed tests of this armor reported that one foot of this armor stopped a M-829 APFSDS round. If this is the basic M-829 [think he implyied that], then one foot of DOrchester stopped ~500mm KE penetration . The Challenger-2 and M-1A2SEP both have about 3/4 of a meter armor thickness through the front turret,of which about 2/3 is the cavity for the special armor....do the math

Having said that the armor protection offered by the LEOPARD-2 tank with the A5/6 applique armor is rummored to offer 1000-1100mm KE resistance...or so I've read.

i do not think you can judge a tank vs another tank until they have actually fought each other but because the merkava has not been proven in battle i would have to go for the m1a2 until proved otherwise

reply to post by crmanager


I am a vet of the USAF. I can kill all the tanks mentioned!
However, As suadi Arabi and Egypt have the Abrams, if they should go to war against Israel, then we will really see which tank is best!!

reply to post by Kozzy



The merkava MK1 was not involved in the Yom Kippur war, So how on earth you say the Merkava 3 was not eaten alive it was inferior in the Yom Kippur war is beyond me. The Yom Kippur war was fought in 1973!

Let put this out there. First off.. to the M1 haters. The M1 was built for tank on tank combat, and has done an excellent job of adapting to urban anti-infantry combat.

Second, the Israeli's built to there needs, they fight in their streets, in their neigborhoods, and in HEAVILY ubranized area's, vs. the US who fights in a wide array of enviorments.

To the post on the M60A3. We took M60A3's and gave them to the Israel's, Ok? SO they modded? We didn't care about the M60, we had the M1 by the time the M60A3 was on the scene and our primary concern wasn't it.

Better comparison would have been the M4A3E8's they received and turned into monsters that beat back the T-54/55's they fought in the 74' war, plus the Israel's also have Centurion's from the UK that they modded.

The Israeli's fight a different kind of combat, and their tanks suit that fight. The US fights on a wider spectrum, and needs a do-all, kill-all tank.

FYI to you people who down the US for not upgrading the M60A3, THEY DID! It's called the 120S by GDLS, it uses the M60 chassis and tan M1 turret. Just google it.

Weps

Pieces Ladies!

reply to post by kaskad


try reading "Russian Armour: Main Battle Tank T-80", by Mikhail Baryatinskiy, its the russian history of the use of the T-80 main battle tank from inception through desert storm

reply to post by Kozzy


what happened to Merkava Mk 4's in 2006? they where knocked out consistently by hezbollah employing crew served anti tank missiles.