Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Life_In_Black

The Merkava, Israel's Chieftain?

Recommended Posts

I post it here to lure colli. He will appear and scream something like 'fucking NERA EVERYWHERE!"

SbD5u5V.jpg

 

IoTevQq.jpg

 

So does anybody here (just maybe.. mr.Marsh..) know what those "ears" are for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merkava 4 without skirts.

mk4_5.jpg

 

AFAIK, a turret with single hatch indicates early model of Merkava 4.

MerkavaIVCheckSix.jpg

Roof armor is more one of thickest amongst modern MBTs.

 

MerkavaIVGazaDuty1.jpg

 

MerkavaIVDirectedIn.jpg

 

How you can use Merk rear ammorack:

11612714.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi LoooSeR,

 

The top photo is actually one of the proof of concept vehicles for the Merkava 4 programme, it's based on a Merkava 3 chassis. Note, the RCWS, which at one stage was going to be a standard fitting for the Merkava 4 but was restricted by costs.

 

Re copyright issues in Russia? An earlier book of mine was reproduced word for word, using the same photos etc, in Russia. The "author" claimed copyright of both text and photos. The publishing company I had written the original for,  for decided not to act as it was hopeless doing so through Russian legal system.

I also had an Italian company reproduce one of my articles and  accompanying photos and claim the copyright for someone else. Complaints useless. 

 

A very well known German publisher stole some of my photos and sold them on. When I complained, I got a real, genuine personal apology from the owner and financial compensation. It's a funny old world out there . . . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the single roof hatch for the Merkava 4? All Merkava' 4s were produced with a "plug" in the turret roof. This could be removed temporarily to allow the fitting of an external seat, to be used by an instructor for crews in training.

 

It was originally intended that the Merkava 4 should go into battle with just the one hatch, the fewer the hatches in situ on the roof, the better the armour protection. Recently, some Merkava 4s have had a permanent, second roof hatch installed. The reason why is considered OPSEC.

 

cheers

Marsh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Walter, that's the case. The exception being photos and illustrations which remain the authors copyright and still generate income. Generally I don't mind if people use my stuff, as long as they acknowledge my copyright.

What really bugs me, is when I see my text and/or photos, either in print or on the web, when someone else claims they took the photos or wrote the book.That does happen and it's bloody annoying!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was told some time ago that this device is somewhat similar to what Shtora was designed for - IR dazzler to jam older SACLOS missiles guidance system. I was also told that it is capable covering several tanks, but i don't have any serious information on this device.

 

merkava30103.jpg

 

Looks like it is mounted on Merkava 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something ive always wondered

 

How well protected is the Merkava compared to the Challagner, Leopard 2, and Abrahams series 

 

That was the subject of contention of this thread.

 

The turret seems very well protected.  The Merkava IV looks like it has the best side and roof turret armor of any MBT.

 

The hull we're not so sure about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was the subject of contention of this thread.

 

The turret seems very well protected.  The Merkava IV looks like it has the best side and roof turret armor of any MBT.

 

The hull we're not so sure about.

Same, Merkava 3BdD and Merkava 4 have a lot of side turret NERA. Hulls are also not badly protected from side - side armor modules are just not as obvious as turret's modules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes; hull sides of the Merkava IV have NERA:

2411833fydf4dfgfg.jpg

 

 

Merkava I was a rather dubious vehicle, IMO.  It was still relying on the 105mm M68/L7 and steel armor when Syria and others were receiving T-72s.  Subsequent Merkava designs seem to have closed the gap.

 

Merkava IV seems more than a match for T-72s.  The 120mm is more powerful than the 125, and probably more than up to killing T-72s of most varieties.  Protection should be adequate, at least if the Merkava is hull down.  Again, I'm dubious about the hull armor.  Optics and fire control are supposed to be state of the art, and the onboard crew electronic aids are probably the best in the world.  The ammunition stowage seems reasonable, although not as good as an Abrams IMO (but better than a Leo 2).  Unless those ammo sleeves are way tougher than I think they are.

 

It's probably the best tank in the region; I don't recall how dumbed-down the Egyptian Abramses are.  Jordan has Challenger Is, which are only about as good as T-72s except for the thermals.  Don't recall anyone else bordering Israel having good tanks.  UAE has Leclercs, obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Merkava I was a rather dubious vehicle, IMO.  It was still relying on the 105mm M68/L7 and steel armor when Syria and others were receiving T-72s.  Subsequent Merkava designs seem to have closed the gap.

 

 

I think that's probably a bit harsh considering that its a 1970's design.  The only really dubious thing about the Merkava I was the transmission.  The CD-850 was not adequate for either the 900 HP engine or the weight of the vehicle.  That issue was fixed with the introduction of the Renk transmission in the Merkava II.  You might ask how it is that Merkava ended up with a German transmission rather than an American one?  Part of the reason is because of competition between US defense companies in the 70's.  

 

Warning, the following is based on conversations I have had with people which may contain bias and/or inaccuracies.

 

Chrysler Defense, the maker of the US M60 tank had a rather poor relationship with Teledyne Continental, the company that made the engine for the M60 (and the Merkava.)  Chrysler liked to use Teledyne (and other subcontractors) as scapegoats to explain any issues they had with the Government concerning vehicle production and delivery.  Relations between the two companies also were not helped by the fact that Teledyne make the engine for the General Motors MBT-70 and XM1 prototypes.  In the mid 70's, the US Army realized they were low on tanks and embarked on the M60A3 program to help restock the tank arsenal.  Originally, M60A3 was intended to have mobility upgrades as part of the program.  Teledyne had a new 900 HP version of the engine they wanted to put into the M60A3, as well as a hydro suspension designed by National Waterlift.  Chrysler did everything they could to kill the mobility upgrades in the M60A3, which included pressuring Allison, the maker of the CD-850 transmission to not improve the unit to deal with a 900HP engine.  Chrysler wanted to kill the mobility upgrades in the M60A3 because anything that was good for Teledyne was bad for them,  They also didn't want the army spending anything more than the minimum on the program so as not to endanger the XM-1 program (which was also the thought that the US Army had as well, they did M60A3 on the cheap.)  Teledyne saw the writing on the wall and said "screw Allison" and went and licensed the Renk transmission (which is a better transmission anyway.)  They also bought the hydro suspension from National Waterlift.  This gave them there own engine, transmission and suspension, a complete mobility upgrade option for any M48 or M60 tank.  These components eventually went into the Teledyne "Super 60" prototype.  The engine and transmission would also go into the Merkava II.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, late 70's design...and by then, the T-72/64 had fielded composite armor (at higher thickness than the Merk 1), 125 smoothbores etc. It could be said that the Merk was behind the times in that respect. 

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...