Merkava

[eckherl]

There was a lot of debate over this with IDF Tankists when Mantank proposed the new loader configuration for the Merkava Mk 4 . But what the Israelis did is changed the roles of all the vehicle crew. The commander was relieved of the role of providing driving direction (and anyone familiar with tanks knows how much the driver relays on situational awareness from the commander) thanks to the rear camera and the loader being given many of these roles. The loader also has a multi-function work station that enables him to see through the hunter killer sights and other sensors. The Israelis have also been wanting to fit the Merkava Mk 4 with a RCWS that the loader would have primary operation.

As for being deficient of a crew served weapon the only tanks in the world that I know of with two roof mounted 7.62mm MGs are Israeli. So in a comparative sense with other tanks (CR2, Leopard 2) what is the shortcoming. Also the firing arc and training of the Merkava Mk 4 commander's MG was significantly improved over the Mk 1/2/3 flex mounts.

Is it a safe bet that they would go with the same RCWS 50 cal set up that is found on the Namer, and while bringing this up, what is the chances of seeing a Auto cannon on a future Namer.

As far as having only one crew served weapons platform I really do not see a issue with this, after the bullets start whizzing by all crewmembers are in defilate mode any ways, especially the loader who needs to be quick to reload the maingun after the battle carry round has been launched.

 

[Wooki]

Well it depends on which mark of the Abrams. The M1A2 SEP has the most advanced firepower of any Abrams. I would still rate the Merkava Mk 4 superior to the M1A2 SEP, CR2 and Leopard 2A6 in the firepower department.

It's fire control is better because it has a highly effective auto-tracker. Like the M1A2 and CR2 it has much better field of view for the hunter killer sights in a hull down position to the Leopard 2A6.

It has a more powerful L44 gun than the M1A2 and smoothbore is better than rifled for anti-tank. The Merkava Mk 4 gun is even better than the L55 120mm because the Merkava is firing DU rounds.

You gotta be careful saying things like that Abe. While it is true from one perspective, ( A proud IDF tanker telling you about chamber pressures and all that) it is at the same time false from the other perspective of a guy in the USA working on how to make the penetrator get more bang for it's buck. Weigh the two gun systems up against the same target and the DOP will come out relatively similar. Or to put it another way, a USArmy tanker doesn't need to worry about his/her platform's ability to work as advertised.

I seriously doubt that Israel (despite their advertised skill in spooky stuff) has the same tech advantage or industrial know how in LR penetrators that the USA enjoys. I do think they would be able to replicate it if someone showed them, but to the best of my knowledge there has been some tech transfer, but not the crown jewels so-to-speak.

Like you referred to before. It is amazing what you can do with materials these days.

As to fire control systems, you have to remember that the US is fielding a thing called the F-35. It doesn't require much speculation on anyone's part to realize the advantage gained if a similar system were adopted in an AFV, even if it was just "no hands".

It comes back to what a nation wants to do with it's little tank. Not too long ago the Merkava project was in doubt. Likewise new technologies that could have been implemented in the M1 15 years ago have been shelved. The Army doesn't need them. So why spend the money trying to improve something that you are happy with when money can go to more needy projects? Again, from one perspective that is sensible management of assets (sure, the M1A2 is not "cutting edge", but let the technologies mature so we can "leap ahead" when we wish to) but from another perspective it is called sitting on your laurels.

Anyway, my point is that there appears to be no technologies on the Merkava that have people in TACOM yelling "Fire! Fire!" and rushing for the nearest exit.


cheers



w

 

[Waylander]

I would also be carefull with statements like "it fires DU rounds so it has to be better".

Just because someone fires a DU KE doesn't automatically means that he achieves the best penetration.

The Brits learned that when they tested the L/55 with DM53/63 against their L30 with the Charm 3 DU system.
It is IMHO not a save bet that the MG253 performs better than the L/55-DM53/63 combo.
For example a Rheinmetall guy we met in Munster once said that they managed to solve the self sharpening problem (or better the lack of it) which has been typical to some degree for older tungsten Penetrators.
It is not as if conventional penetrator technology and materials doesn't advance.


Are there other advantages the Merk FCS has over other designes apart from the auto-tracker? (Not that this isn't an advantage all by itself)?

 

[eckherl]

I would also be carefull with statements like "it fires DU rounds so it has to be better".

Just because someone fires a DU KE doesn't automatically means that he achieves the best penetration.

The Brits learned that when they tested the L/55 with DM53/63 against their L30 with the Charm 3 DU system.
It is IMHO not a save bet that the MG253 performs better than the L/55-DM53/63 combo.
For example a Rheinmetall guy we met in Munster once said that they managed to solve the self sharpening problem (or better the lack of it) which has been typical to some degree for older tungsten Penetrators.
It is not as if conventional penetrator technology and materials doesn't advance.


Are there other advantages the Merk FCS has over other designes apart from the auto-tracker? (Not that this isn't an advantage all by itself)?

Yes Waylander, great improvements have been made with Tungsten to eliminate bending, mushrooming and the the ability to self sharpen after impact, would you think that I was crazy to state that a certain U.S firm worked with Rheinmetal to achieve that. Australia`s new tank slaying projectile also has benefited from the very same technology.

I do not see a great benefit with auto trackers, especially with a vehicle that has a excellant stabilization system matched up with a fast FCS, not that I am bad mouthing auto trackers, could be a matter of preference.

 

[Waylander]

@Eckherl
I wouldn't be surprised. It is not as if German and US defence companies haven't worked on alot of big and small joint projects with most of them not well known outside certain groups of people.

I for example was quite surprised when I read that the US bunker busters get their fuze from a german company.


Actually I am quite interested in how accurate autotrackers (Especially the ones in the Leclerc and Merkava) are when it comes to retrack a target after it it went out of LOS for some short time.

The same question applies for their ability to retrack a target during a rough cross country ride when the sight hits it's maximum elevation.
Especially that might be helpfull because during such circumstances it is when a gunner faces the tallest hurdles.

 

[eckherl]

@Eckherl
I wouldn't be surprised. It is not as if German and US defence companies haven't worked on alot of big and small joint projects with most of them not well known outside certain groups of people.

I for example was quite surprised when I read that the US bunker busters get their fuze from a german company.


Actually I am quite interested in how accurate autotrackers (Especially the ones in the Leclerc and Merkava) are when it comes to retrack a target after it it went out of LOS for some short time.

The same question applies for their ability to retrack a target during a rough cross country ride when the sight hits it's maximum elevation.
Especially that might be helpfull because during such circumstances it is when a gunner faces the tallest hurdles.

That is what maybe Abe could explain inregards to the auto tracker device set up on Merk 4 for me, is it a requirement that the gunner has to keep the lase/auto tracker button pushed in on the gunners cadillac controls while on target like the Leclerc or Type 90, after you release the button all ballistic solution data and auto lead is eliminated for that target, if this is the case how much better then is it over the LEO 2A5/6 or M1A2, we are set up with auto lead also.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Is it a safe bet that they would go with the same RCWS 50 cal set up that is found on the Namer, and while bringing this up, what is the chances of seeing a Auto cannon on a future Namer.

They have a few domestic options for RCWS. The tial to date used a Mini Samson with 12.7mm. (See attached picture)

There will be a version of the Namer with the Samson RCWS with 30mm Mk 44 and Spike missile launcher. They will be issued to the anti-tank company of each Namer equipped infantry brigade. The IDF concept is for MBTs to provide most of the direct fire support and the APC just to suppress enemy infantry as it deploys its own dismounts.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

You gotta be careful saying things like that Abe. While it is true from one perspective, ( A proud IDF tanker telling you about chamber pressures and all that) it is at the same time false from the other perspective of a guy in the USA working on how to make the penetrator get more bang for it's buck. Weigh the two gun systems up against the same target and the DOP will come out relatively similar. Or to put it another way, a USArmy tanker doesn't need to worry about his/her platform's ability to work as advertised.

Sigh... Well the 120mm L44 gun on the Merkava Mk 4 has a higher chamber pressure than the M256. Of course ammunition plays a role but the IDF uses a mix of US sourced 120mm and their own ammo. So a Merkava Mk 4 firing the latest DU long road from the US is going to have better performance than a M1A1/A2 firing the same. If they apply technology from the FCS's XM360 120mm to the M256 then the US would probably be out in front again.

As to fire control systems, you have to remember that the US is fielding a thing called the F-35. It doesn't require much speculation on anyone's part to realize the advantage gained if a similar system were adopted in an AFV, even if it was just "no hands".

Yep and Elbit who design the F-35 HMD are already using that technology on AFV systems... But there is little doubt the XM1202 MCS will be far more effective than a Merkava Mk 4 thanks to it's fire control, mobility, stealth and C2 capability. But the XM1202 is not in service yet.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

That is what maybe Abe could explain inregards to the auto tracker device set up on Merk 4 for me, is it a requirement that the gunner has to keep the lase/auto tracker button pushed in on the gunners cadillac controls while on target like the Leclerc or Type 90, after you release the button all ballistic solution data and auto lead is eliminated for that target, if this is the case how much better then is it over the LEO 2A5/6 or M1A2, we are set up with auto lead also.

There is an additional 'track' control that is selected. The auto-tracker is mostly for engaging helicopters and other aircraft. It is useful but in counter insurgency warfare with restrictive ROEs. The auto-tracker can be applied to a suspect individual or vehicle while permission is sought for engagement. From what I saw it worked for targets driving behind trees and buildings. I didn't see anything longer than a few seconds being demonstrated. Its something worth having rather than not.

As to the rest of the FCS performance Merkava Mk 4s built only 4 years ago are cycling through 7100 to receive FCS upgrades. The EO sensitivity should be considered as good as anything else out there of equal size. There are not many AFVs with 2007/08 level IR tech.

 

[Wooki]

photos

You know Abe, you could load up the photo gallery with some of your merkava shots? As there are none on this site at the moment.

cheers

w

 

[eckherl]

They have a few domestic options for RCWS. The tial to date used a Mini Samson with 12.7mm. (See attached picture)

There will be a version of the Namer with the Samson RCWS with 30mm Mk 44 and Spike missile launcher. They will be issued to the anti-tank company of each Namer equipped infantry brigade. The IDF concept is for MBTs to provide most of the direct fire support and the APC just to suppress enemy infantry as it deploys its own dismounts.

Good info, I always thought that they may in fact out fit the Namer with a auto cannon. Also thanks for the look see of the RCWS Merk set up.

Question that I have that could settle a debate issue with me and a few fellow tanking comrades on Merk 4s maingun. Do you know how many gas relieve holes that they have gone with under the bore evacuator.

 

[eckherl]

There is an additional 'track' control that is selected. The auto-tracker is mostly for engaging helicopters and other aircraft. It is useful but in counter insurgency warfare with restrictive ROEs. The auto-tracker can be applied to a suspect individual or vehicle while permission is sought for engagement. From what I saw it worked for targets driving behind trees and buildings. I didn't see anything longer than a few seconds being demonstrated. Its something worth having rather than not.

As to the rest of the FCS performance Merkava Mk 4s built only 4 years ago are cycling through 7100 to receive FCS upgrades. The EO sensitivity should be considered as good as anything else out there of equal size. There are not many AFVs with 2007/08 level IR tech.

Ah okay, that is what I thought in regards to the autotracker and have to agree that if it works and shows that it is effective then use it, shooting at helicopters or fast movers is not as easy as some folks may think.


What is your impression of the M1A2 SEP version 2 set up.

 

[carman1877]

Abraham stated that they 12.7mm is controlled with the main gun. i forget which website but one said that it had a sensor under it and it was remote controlled by the crew.

 

[Wooki]

I would also be carefull with statements like "it fires DU rounds so it has to be better".

Just because someone fires a DU KE doesn't automatically means that he achieves the best penetration.

The Brits learned that when they tested the L/55 with DM53/63 against their L30 with the Charm 3 DU system.
It is IMHO not a save bet that the MG253 performs better than the L/55-DM53/63 combo.
For example a Rheinmetall guy we met in Munster once said that they managed to solve the self sharpening problem (or better the lack of it) which has been typical to some degree for older tungsten Penetrators.
It is not as if conventional penetrator technology and materials doesn't advance.


Are there other advantages the Merk FCS has over other designes apart from the auto-tracker? (Not that this isn't an advantage all by itself)?

Yeh I was just looking at the unclassified DM53 slow burn characteristics. Ten % to Fifteen % increase in muzzle velocity = 20 to 30 % increase in KE and that is not including the lengthened barrel of the L55.

vicious.

cheers

w

 

[Waylander]

Thanks for the infos about the autotracker Abe (Is it actually ok to call you Abe?).
Looks like and interesting feature which may come handy in some situations.
Although I am not fully convinced of it's usefullness when it comes to track a target for some time while the guys up top decide wether to kill it or not.
I mean the gunner would track the target anyways. It is not as if he is the one seeking permission.

Another question. Is the namer version with the 30mm RCWS and Spike going to carry a (reduced) squad, or is it fully designated to perform in the fire support role?
I have to say that I have always been sceptical about Israels use of HAPCs instead of IFVs.
While I accept that in the IDF the doctrin calls for the tanks to give the fire support while the HAPCs are there to transport the infantry to their dismount point as protected as possible I am not sure if this is the right way.

A HAPC, especially such a beast like the Namer, is giving the infantry alot of protection but all they can do when they are under attack while they are on the move is to weather the storm and do some spray and pray.
Normally the accompanying tanks should do the fighting while on the move but IFVs instead of HAPCs would add alot of long range fire power, target ID and tracking capability to the whole group.

Besides that IFVs add alot of mobile fire support to their dismounted squads.
I know that such a discussion often enough turns into a battle of faith but I hope this one doesn't.

IMHO it would be ideal to give the mechanized infantry an IFV. These formations have to do alot of the fighting on the move and are not that dependent on high dismount numbers.
The (H)APCs would go to the light infantry where they give protected transport capacity to as much dismounts as possible.

May the idea of giving some Namers a big RCWS be the beginning of the IDF changing their doctrine?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

You know Abe, you could load up the photo gallery with some of your merkava shots? As there are none on this site at the moment.

I didn't take many photos. Obviously you can't just stroll through a production line and inside a tank taking pictures! The only Merkavas they had 'sealed' and able to be photoed was an original Mk 4 waiting for rebuild between two Sh'ots waiting for knackering and a Namer after final painting. The later was still covered by its masking and insider the drying bay so looked pretty crap. There are lots of good Merkava photos at http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=101396&page=193

PS There is a limit to the kind of information I will provide here for a range of security/proprietary reasons. Some things that detailed photos (which I don't have anyway) would give away.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Question that I have that could settle a debate issue with me and a few fellow tanking comrades on Merk 4s maingun. Do you know how many gas relieve holes that they have gone with under the bore evacuator.

Ahh I little bit too detailed! Like asking me how many oil sump holes there are in the engine bay! Plus the gun is produced by IMI and supplied as a complete unit to 7100 for assembly... I did go to IMI as well... But this is the kind of detail you only get if you are buying not just looking!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Thanks for the infos about the autotracker Abe (Is it actually ok to call you Abe?).

Yeah sure, I'll call you "Way"

Another question. Is the namer version with the 30mm RCWS and Spike going to carry a (reduced) squad, or is it fully designated to perform in the fire support role?

I don't know if there will be a squad but it is for the anti-tank company. So it might have 1-2 Spike ATGM dismount teams and a bunch of missiles.

There is a lot of room in the back of the Namer. You could easily fit in 12 seats at Bradley/M113 levels of individual space. The IDF went for 8 seats so a stretcher could be mounted between the rows and still give the dismounts in the seats room to move. Its like a warehouse in the back!

I have to say that I have always been sceptical about Israels use of HAPCs instead of IFVs.
While I accept that in the IDF the doctrin calls for the tanks to give the fire support while the HAPCs are there to transport the infantry to their dismount point as protected as possible I am not sure if this is the right way.

There is a lot of debate within the IDF as well. The increasing level of combat inside urban areas and distributed nature of COIN fighting against ATGM teams in Lebanon all mean that the conventional company in APCs charging towards the objective with a company of MBTs in overwatch banging way is becoming less common. You can replace the 12.7mm with a 40mm AGL to boost individual vehicle firepower in urban areas but for taking down those ATGM teams a 30mm Mk44 and your own ATGM is much better.

But I guess another issue is cost. The Sampson RCWS and equivalents are in the high hundreds or thousands to buy...

 

[eckherl]

Abraham stated that they 12.7mm is controlled with the main gun. i forget which website but one said that it had a sensor under it and it was remote controlled by the crew.

The 12.7 device mounted to the main gun mantlet is the same set up as used by the U.S on its Tusk upgrade kits, this system actually has been around for quite some time with the U.S using it on M60 and M1 series tanks as a training device for tank gunnery preperations. The IDF found it works quite well as a long range sniping device as well.

 

[eckherl]

Ahh I little bit too detailed! Like asking me how many oil sump holes there are in the engine bay! Plus the gun is produced by IMI and supplied as a complete unit to 7100 for assembly... I did go to IMI as well... But this is the kind of detail you only get if you are buying not just looking!

Shucks, at least it was worth a try.