Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Army & Security Forces
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Miramar_14_MV-22_1621a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_1726a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_0074a1.JPG

Miramar_14_FA-18C_0409a.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





M1A2 vs Merkava MK4

This is a discussion on M1A2 vs Merkava MK4 within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Wikipedia Optimized for urban combat, the Merkava has improved armour not only on the front of the ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 4.00 average.
Old April 23rd, 2006   #1
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Bengal Republic
Posts: 167
Threads:
M1A2 vs Merkava MK4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Optimized for urban combat, the Merkava has improved armour not only on the front of the tank but on the sides and top as well. The armour is modular so only damaged plates need replacement when the tank is hit. The Mk 4 also has additional crew survivability features: each component is designed to act as back-up protection if the main armour is penetrated. The Mk 4 has an integrated air conditioning and NBC protection system. Ammunition is stored in fire-proof canisters.

The Merkava has an advanced fire control system with a new 120 mm smoothbore cannon and an advanced targeting system, giving the tank the capacity to engage and shoot down anti-tank helicopters such as the French SA342L Gazelle and the Russian Mil Mi-24 Hind (used by the Syrian Air Force). It is also armed with a .50 BMG (12.7 mm) coaxial machine-gun (MAG Rafael) and a new generation, internal 60 mm mortar. Its internal machine-gun and the rear door (which exists in all generations of the Merkava) have proven to be useful in urban warfare.

The Merkava has improved mobility, enabling the tank to manoeuvre more easily in the Golan Heights where the terrain can limit tank movements. The new Caterpillar tracks system (abbreviated as "Mazkom" (מזקו"ם) in Hebrew: מערכת זחלים קפיצים ומרכובים - "Tracks, springs and wheels system (abbv.: TSAWS)") are also improved to endure harsh ground conditions and minimize track-spreading incidents. A video system gives the driver 360 degree visibility at all times. A new 1500 horsepower diesel engine increases the speed and power of the tank and enables it to develop sprints of 60 km/h.

Yet another improvement is the development of a Battle Management System (צי"ד) designed by Elbit Systems, which uses digital information (gathered by other forces such as other tanks, UAVs and the central command) to update planning, navigation, and briefing of crews. The Battle Management System can record data gained during the mission and transmit it live to other forces.

There are rumours that the Israelis were at one time working on a 140 mm cannon-armed variant of the Merkava, perhaps called the Mk 5. They may still be, and there has been speculation as to when such a tank will appear, especially since the current production of the Mk 4 is in danger of budget cuts.
since its wiki I am asking whether this data is reliable.for all I saw Abrams can take damage during urban warfare but repaired quickly.People say its still the best,better than its Israeli counterpart.
discuss.
Scorpius is offline  
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which is the World's Best Tank?? Red aRRow Army & Security Forces 270 July 3rd, 2005 12:29 AM
M1A2, Al Khalid whats better. ThunderBolt Army & Security Forces 4 June 11th, 2005 12:28 AM

Old April 23rd, 2006   #2
Troll Hunter
General
WebMaster's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: GA, USA
Posts: 18,129
Threads:
Exclamation

I am getting a little tired of these this vs that threads and it is especially frustrating when the user opening the threads does not provide ANY personal input (technical or and outline of how user understands the weapon system) on the topic whatsoever.

I guess we need rules on "this vs that" threads? Yup, only on DefenceTalk!

Here it goes, when opening "this vs that" thread, keep this in mind:
  1. -Provide YOUR OWN input, detail it and show that you've studied both (this and that) extensively
  2. -tell us WHY you think one is better than the other...
  3. -Use references to support your argument, if you can't find a reliable source then use wikipedia. Sorry. Don't merely rely on the references to make up your post.
  4. -Ask questions and put forth a detailed argument so that others are forced to reply to your opinion

I will add these to the rules page and more if I think of any. Enjoy!
________________
Wise man says...
DefenceTalk.com | SinoDefenceForum.com

Got a problem? Need help? Contact me!
WebMaster is offline  
Old April 24th, 2006   #3
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
long live usa's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 152
Threads:
i think that the merkava carries 8 people some combat ready,so are you talking tank vs tank or can the infantry inside get involved also?
long live usa is offline  
Old April 29th, 2006   #4
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 55
Threads:
Also, are we talking about the m1a2? or the m1a2 sep? Becuase if were talking about the m1a2......I rhink i'm gunna have to go with mk4....but if it was the m1a2 sep.....well then thats a different story.
Bfn42 is offline  
Old April 29th, 2006   #5
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Bengal Republic
Posts: 167
Threads:
sep?what's that,improved variant?
Scorpius is offline  
Old April 29th, 2006   #6
Troll Hunter
General
WebMaster's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: GA, USA
Posts: 18,129
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorpius
sep?what's that,improved variant?
SEP would be the SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PACKAGE (SEP)

read about it here:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/
________________
Wise man says...
DefenceTalk.com | SinoDefenceForum.com

Got a problem? Need help? Contact me!
WebMaster is offline  
Old September 29th, 2006   #7
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
eckherl's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,268
Threads:
M1A2 vs Merkava MK4

For shock and speed on the battlefield I would go for the M1A2, for defensive or a urbanized war setting I would go for the Merkava.
eckherl is offline  
Old October 6th, 2006   #8
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: One bridge too close
Posts: 31
Threads:
Considering mobility, it looks like the Mk4 runs a 1500hp Teledyne Continental V12 diesel for 65 total (metric) tons, which puts it on the same level as the M1A2. The Abrams has had a 1500hp gas turbine from the beginning, and that was a huge step forward on the 55-ton M1 model 1979, but the M1A2(SEP) is also reaching 63-65 tons. In that respect, theoretical mobility is the same.
Max speed must be equivalent. Possibly, the Abrams' gas turbine gives it a better acceleration and cold start ability, but that's not even sure. What is sure, on the other hand, is that the Abrams guzzles fuel nearly twice as fast (545lt/100km against 280lt/100km).
So the advantage in mobility may not even be that great anymore, as it was twenty years ago.
PlasmaKrab is offline  
Old October 6th, 2006   #9
Senior Member
Brigadier General
Ozzy Blizzard's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,846
Threads:
Abrams has to be a bitch logistically. That thirsty turbine engine. So if you went with the M1 you would also need all the extra logistical assets to feed them. Often these things are more important than a few extra kph, especially if the Mekreva's still on the battlefield when the Abrams is at the pump. The massive strain on logistical systems has to be the Abrams achillies heal.
Ozzy Blizzard is offline  
Old October 6th, 2006   #10
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaKrab
Considering mobility, it looks like the Mk4 runs a 1500hp Teledyne Continental V12 diesel for 65 total (metric) tons, which puts it on the same level as the M1A2. The Abrams has had a 1500hp gas turbine from the beginning, and that was a huge step forward on the 55-ton M1 model 1979, but the M1A2(SEP) is also reaching 63-65 tons. In that respect, theoretical mobility is the same.
Max speed must be equivalent. Possibly, the Abrams' gas turbine gives it a better acceleration and cold start ability, but that's not even sure. What is sure, on the other hand, is that the Abrams guzzles fuel nearly twice as fast (545lt/100km against 280lt/100km).
So the advantage in mobility may not even be that great anymore, as it was twenty years ago.
The cross-country mobility of an armoured vehicle is dependant on it's suspension and track type, not the power of it's engine or weight of the overall vehicle.

To truly compare the off-road performance of these respective vehicles, extensive trialling would have to be conducted. There is simply no other way to accurately tell (known to me at least). Certainly paper statistics offer no hint as to their real capabilities...

What the turbine provides is extremely low noise levels (compared to conventional diesel engines) and a vast power output for the size and weight of the overall engine.

The Australian Army in particular requires vehicles that possess outstanding range, due to the vastness of our Country. It is quite obviously satisfied with the range available from the Abrams and as further proof of this, has not massively invested in supporting capabilities though it has increased in numbers and in capability that which was provided for the Leopards (in terms of refuelling trucks, transporters etc).
 
Old October 6th, 2006   #11
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: One bridge too close
Posts: 31
Threads:
I follow you on matters of real mobility, Digger, that's why I was speaking of theoretical mobility. At least on even ground, the sheer engine power and gear ratios have their say too. As far as suspension is concerned, the Merkava may have a slight upper hand too, with heavy-duty creep srings as opposed to torsion bars on the Abrams.
I don't think that makes much difference (we're not talking hydromneumatic or anything), but it may have a slightly better handling on rough terrain. The payoff comes in wear and maintenance, as often, particularly with external springs and rubber-less road wheels.

The stealth headlong given to the Abrams by the gas turbine and performant tracks is undeniable though.

Now about the matter of the range of the Abrams, most quotes don't go above 350km with max fuel for the A2. I'd hardly see that fitting to cross Australia on your own. But that's not what the Aussie Abramses are supposed to do, is it?

Do you have something about the actual Abrams doctrine of the AA? Are they supposed to be runners like the old Leos?
I'd rather see them used as infantry support in a mobile defence against some hypothetical Indonesian/Chinese/whatever landing, or more realistically, being shipped integrated in a US/NATO/UN peacekeeping effort (and according logistics) and hold more or less the same role as their US counterparts had back in Kosovo.
PlasmaKrab is offline  
Old October 6th, 2006   #12
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
eckherl's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,268
Threads:
M1A2 vs Merkava MK4

A fully combat loaded M1A1 or A2 weighs in at 67 tons when fully combat loaded, it takes close to five gallons of fuel just to turn the motor over. This has been a deciding factor with many countries wanting to purchase tanks. As far as the suspension goe`s, the M1A1 or A2 utilizes torsion bars with rotory shocks. The Merkava was designed around the type of terrian that it would fight in thus not needing the speeed factor. I know the Merkava 1 had the same speed as a M60A1, I would really be interested in knowing the speed of a 3 or 4 model. Every way that you look at it they are booth excellant armored fighting vehicles, but I would place my bet on the M1A2 to win a gun fight. (Crew training, Technology).
eckherl is offline  
Old October 6th, 2006   #13
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasmaKrab
I follow you on matters of real mobility, Digger, that's why I was speaking of theoretical mobility. At least on even ground, the sheer engine power and gear ratios have their say too. As far as suspension is concerned, the Merkava may have a slight upper hand too, with heavy-duty creep srings as opposed to torsion bars on the Abrams.
I don't think that makes much difference (we're not talking hydromneumatic or anything), but it may have a slightly better handling on rough terrain. The payoff comes in wear and maintenance, as often, particularly with external springs and rubber-less road wheels.

The stealth headlong given to the Abrams by the gas turbine and performant tracks is undeniable though.

Now about the matter of the range of the Abrams, most quotes don't go above 350km with max fuel for the A2. I'd hardly see that fitting to cross Australia on your own. But that's not what the Aussie Abramses are supposed to do, is it?

Do you have something about the actual Abrams doctrine of the AA? Are they supposed to be runners like the old Leos?
I'd rather see them used as infantry support in a mobile defence against some hypothetical Indonesian/Chinese/whatever landing, or more realistically, being shipped integrated in a US/NATO/UN peacekeeping effort (and according logistics) and hold more or less the same role as their US counterparts had back in Kosovo.
We use our armour in battlegroups with supporting mechanished infantry a cavalry screening force (using ASLAV's) supported by artilllery fires, which aresoon to be upgraded with new SPG's and possibly "other" systems (Australia is VERY keen on the NLOS-LS system for instance).

Our Abrams will mainly be used in the infantry support role as you suggest, but I guess if we ever actually faced another force with a tank capacity or at least an armoured capacity of any kind they would go head to head with them...
 
Old October 6th, 2006   #14
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Waylander's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
Posts: 4,676
Threads:
I just can say that the difference in some tons while using a 1500hp engine is not really big.
If you take the Leo IIA4 and the Leo IIA5/A6 as an example than you see that our drivers just talk about a feeling of not accelerating that fast and being a little bit nose heavy but nothing really interesting.
The under-carriage is much mich more interesting than just the power-weight ratio for the mobility of an AFV.
And you only find out the difference by heavy testing both contestans in difficult terrain.
Waylander is offline  
Old October 7th, 2006   #15
Junior Member
Private First Class
oskarm's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Poland, Gdansk
Posts: 65
Threads:
Does someone have a photo of Merkava made with TI (8-12 [um] band)? I wonder how does it look at front with working engin.
oskarm is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:19 AM.