Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Life_In_Black

The Merkava, Israel's Chieftain?

Recommended Posts

Hi LooSeR. Yes Merk 2 Batash with armour modules specifically designed to defeat heavy ATGMs. Also note the side skirts which extend upwards.

Marsh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NERA, i guess?

:lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUxrMW04tXs

Probably Kryptonite in the modules . . . . .

I do know of one instance where this particular model of Merk was hit by two heavy ATGMs (early model TOWs I believe). I know from someone who was at MANTAK at the time, that it generated a huge volume of traffic from the US, who were mightily impressed with the performance of the armour modules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This picture illustrates why I'm dubious of active protection systems.

 

How well can the threat warning sensors work when the tank is surrounded by dust?

 

If the tank fires, it will throw up a cloud of dust that persists for up to several minutes, depending on conditions.  Even moving throws up a decent amount of dust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This picture illustrates why I'm dubious of active protection systems.

 

How well can the threat warning sensors work when the tank is surrounded by dust?

 

If the tank fires, it will throw up a cloud of dust that persists for up to several minutes, depending on conditions.  Even moving throws up a decent amount of dust.

 

I was actually told by a former Merkava III commander that they rely on the dust to blend in with the base color and camouflage the tank to its current operating environment, as they don't use camo paint at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Life_in _Black.

 

From the Merkava III onwards, when they received their initial paint job at Tel ha Shomer, basalt blocks were fed in a crusher. Then the finely crushed rock is passed through a hopper. The fine grit is then added to the grey/olive paint sprayed on the tank. The noise is absolutely unbearable. It is a clever, if primitive, method of camouflage. Any environmental dust sticks to the tanks paint job, it is a bastard to clean off in fact. Thus a Merkava operating on the Golan will look a different hue to a Merk in the Negev.

 

In this era of multi-spectral sensors, the IDF need to move on. Hence Fibrotex . . . . .

 

To collimatrix. You are mistaken. what you consider a problem is a non-issue. Frequencies used are not affected. Making the fire control system work well in a dusty environment with a resultant thermal plume was a real problem to solve. Your point simply isn't an issue, sorry.

 

cheers

Marsh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To collimatrix. You are mistaken. what you consider a problem is a non-issue. Frequencies used are not affected. Making the fire control system work well in a dusty environment with a resultant thermal plume was a real problem to solve. Your point simply isn't an issue, sorry.

 

cheers

Marsh

 

 

Interesting.  What sort of spectrum cuts through dust, I wonder?  Short-wave radar?

 

Extrapolating further, are there any EM frequencies that penetrate effectively through smoke?  If so, how effective would smoke grenades be in the future?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Life_in _Black.

 

From the Merkava III onwards, when they received their initial paint job at Tel ha Shomer, basalt blocks were fed in a crusher. Then the finely crushed rock is passed through a hopper. The fine grit is then added to the grey/olive paint sprayed on the tank. The noise is absolutely unbearable. It is a clever, if primitive, method of camouflage. Any environmental dust sticks to the tanks paint job, it is a bastard to clean off in fact. Thus a Merkava operating on the Golan will look a different hue to a Merk in the Negev.

 

In this era of multi-spectral sensors, the IDF need to move on. Hence Fibrotex . . . . .

 

To collimatrix. You are mistaken. what you consider a problem is a non-issue. Frequencies used are not affected. Making the fire control system work well in a dusty environment with a resultant thermal plume was a real problem to solve. Your point simply isn't an issue, sorry.

 

cheers

Marsh

 

Interesting, my friend left that out about the basalt being used to make the dust stick to the paint. Then again, he probably didn't know all things considered. This explains the look of the paint on most Merkavas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

icis480.jpg

That's the Glacis of a Mk.4? Doesn't look all that thick to be honest...nor is it sloped enough to not need to be well-sloped...

 

Corvettes need to bring back the pop ups  :P

 

Also, the modular turret armor won't hold up if it gets un-angled in any way. I used to think the Merkava was super-heavily armored, if anything it is just "well-armored" but with good methods of containing a penetration. 

Edited by Mike E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

    IDK, maybe parts were removed from UFP before making this photo. Hard to say how thick it actually is, because vehicle is giant, which creates feeling that glacis is nothing to speak about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

    IDK, maybe parts were removed from UFP before making this photo. Hard to say how thick it actually is, because vehicle is giant, which creates feeling that glacis is nothing to speak about.

Kind of doubt that... It appears like the Glacis is a simple two-material laminate or composite angled at around or just over 60 degrees. My guess would be it is roughly 100 mm thick, and unless it has a super high ME that angling will only make it a few hundred RHAe. Though RHAe can not simulate the effects of a composite on any round. I think IDF took the easy excuse of "well the engine is up there" in order to get away with this. 

 

That picture also makes the hull roof look to be around half of the Glacis in thickness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the Glacis of a Mk.4? Doesn't look all that thick to be honest...nor is it sloped enough to not need to be well-sloped...

 

Corvettes need to bring back the pop ups  :P

 

Also, the modular turret armor won't hold up if it gets un-angled in any way. I used to think the Merkava was super-heavily armored, if anything it is just "well-armored" but with good methods of containing a penetration. 

 

I don't think it's all that thick either, as everything I've seen seems to indicate it's relying on the slope of the armor much more than the thickness of the armor. Like here for instance:

merkava_engine_02.jpg

 

That's why I named this thread the way I did, because the Merkava really seems like a further ev olution of the Chieftain, which makes sense given the Merkava's origins. My personal tinfoil hat theory is that the reason the armor is still technically classified is because the armor is really much thinner than they want to let on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any pics that show the Merk's lower plate? The upper plate seems meh, but it should be decent for any Syrian AFVs and most insurgent AT weapons. 

 

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/armored_personnel_carriers/namera/Namera.htm There are photos there for the Namer which shows the lower plate and the armored fuel tanks that fill the space between the front section of the lower and part of the upper plate, as well as the wall behind the fuel tanks. Of note is that not only is the armor plates extremely thin all things considered, but the plates have interlocking welds, which is the only time I've seen that done for armored vehicles outside of WWII Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's all that thick either, as everything I've seen seems to indicate it's relying on the slope of the armor much more than the thickness of the armor. Like here for instance:

 

 

That's why I named this thread the way I did, because the Merkava really seems like a further ev olution of the Chieftain, which makes sense given the Merkava's origins. My personal tinfoil hat theory is that the reason the armor is still technically classified is because the armor is really much thinner than they want to let on.

 

For those who haven't followed our little community, forum member Xlucine (Xlu) did some measurements with an ultrasonic probe on an early chieftain at Bovington tank museum.  Chieftain MBT has a reputation for extremely good armor protection based on armor thickness figures that have been repeated for years... and are completely wrong.  Chieftain was in fact only a bit better armored from the front than M60A1.

 

It was probably the best protected mass-produced tank ever made using regular steel armor (best ever made would be some horrifying Russian prototype, probably IS-7 or Object 279), but it was really only so-so protected against Warsaw Pact anti-tank weapons of the time.  Iraqi T-62s don't seem to have had too much trouble with Iranian chieftains.

 

And holy shit, I hadn't seen all of those pictures before, Life.  That does look thin.

 

Kind of doubt that... It appears like the Glacis is a simple two-material laminate or composite angled at around or just over 60 degrees. My guess would be it is roughly 100 mm thick, and unless it has a super high ME that angling will only make it a few hundred RHAe. Though RHAe can not simulate the effects of a composite on any round. I think IDF took the easy excuse of "well the engine is up there" in order to get away with this. 

 

That picture also makes the hull roof look to be around half of the Glacis in thickness.

 

Did the IDF ever claim that the engine and transmission improve crew protection?  I've come to interpret that line as outside interpolation.  It doesn't really make sense; the engine provides no frontal protection to the driver whatsoever because it's to the side of the driver.

 

Poking around a bit, I think Merk IV's hull protection is substantially based on what's underneath the hull armor.  The fuel tanks add extra protection vs. HEAT (and who knows, maybe they're the really fancy fuel tank designs that work well against KE too), and there are supposed to be some sort of bulkheads down there too.  The thickness between the driver and threats across the LFP looks OK, and is probably filled with fuel tanks and magical composites.  It's the glacis itself that's not so hot.

 

Not entirely unlike an abrams, although the abrams has a slopier and smaller glacis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By delfosisyu
      I heard Merkava tanks have  revolving magazine for main gun loading.
      Magazines hold 6 rounds for Merkava I, II,   5 rounds  for Merkava III, 10 rounds for Merkava IV. 
      After emptying the magazine, how is the procedure for filling magazines with stowed rounds?
    • By Mighty_Zuk
      I realized we don't have a topic for a proper discussion of what future AFVs should look like, in the style of a general AFVs discussion rather than country-specific threads.
       
      I spotted a revived potential need for future MBTs - a coaxial autocannon to replace the coaxial MG. The reason? An APS neutralizer. 
      Here's my short post on why I think it should happen:
       
      I didn't add it there, but I see lasers as a potential alternative. However, I don't think they're viable because of the power required to properly neutralize an APS's components, especially if these components are dispersed, or worse yet, effectively camouflaged. An autocannon will be able to disable not only the APS but other external components all at once. 
      Similar to the engagement method showcased by Russia where they fired 2 Kornet missiles (almost) simultaneously to defeat an APS, a hypothetical mode of operation could include firing a burst of 2 KETF shells at a target prior to firing a main gun shell.
       
      An additional alternative could be to use a single main gun ABM shell that would initiate outside the scope of the APS's engagement range (e.g engagement range is 30m so it initiates at 50m), but it would have 2 main issues that are a longer time to kill a target and a greater consumption of ammunition (up to a 3rd of ammo would have to be allocated to ABM munitions strictly for anti-armor operations).
    • By Mighty_Zuk
      Welcome to Mighty Zuk's place of mental rest and peace of mind. This is my realm. 
      I've decided it would be best to ditch the old Merkava thread for 2 reasons:
      1)It does not feature any bunched up information in its main post, and valuable information is scattered across different posts on different pages. 
      2)Many AFVs that are not related to the Merkava, or related but are not it, appear in that thread with improper representation. There are other AFVs than the Merkava, and it would be better to refer to them in a general way.
       
      As time will go by, I will arrange this thread into a sort of information center. 
       
      I will take up a few first comment spaces to make sure proper amount of information can be stacked up on the front page and for easier access for everyone.
       
      [Reserved for future posts - Merkava]
×
×
  • Create New...