LoooSeR Posted September 26, 2015 Report Share Posted September 26, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted September 26, 2015 Report Share Posted September 26, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted September 26, 2015 Report Share Posted September 26, 2015 Yom kippur war, Shot Kal. Magach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted September 26, 2015 Report Share Posted September 26, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted September 30, 2015 Report Share Posted September 30, 2015 From discussions about 2006 war, becoming possible that amount of Kornets AT teams was small, just 2-3 teams (2-3 launchers). Only 2 episodes of use of Kornet are known, 3 missiles fired (in one Merakva 4 was ammoracked, with all crew dead, in other episode AFAIK Merkava 4 was hit 2 times and 3 crewmembers were killed). There were more Kornet lanucher. but they were used against infantry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted October 1, 2015 Report Share Posted October 1, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted October 2, 2015 Report Share Posted October 2, 2015 Training, Merkava 4. Instructor have something connected to the tank, i guess it is tablet/PC/control panel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted October 5, 2015 Report Share Posted October 5, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted October 12, 2015 Report Share Posted October 12, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 It seems that hull roof of the Siman 4 is located higher over tracks than in Siman 3. Collimatrix 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 Yes, it does look that way. Glacis shape appears different as well; mk 3 appears to have more slope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted October 13, 2015 Report Share Posted October 13, 2015 I think slope is very similar, it is just angle of photo :-P Anyway, it could have been result of higher ground clearence to use add-on protection against IEDs. Do we have stats for both Siman 3 and 4 to compare hulls sizes and overal height of hull roof? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 Hmmm, if you could find pictures of a Mk III and Mk IV from the side from the same angle, you could see where the road wheels line up with the hull bottom. Assuming the IV didn't have the supplementary belly armor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 Storage are in Merkava Siman 4 turret side armor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 Hard to say, but it looks to me like the hull is both taller and has more clearance. Assuming the road wheel swing arms are roughly the same design, the Mk IV arms look like they are more vertical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter_Sobchak Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 I would assume that the front glacis shape of the Merkava IV is the more ideal design. The front hull shape of the Merk I through III is dictated in part by the size of the engine. Mark IV has a much more compact power pack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 Merkava layout with engine in the front and ammunition in the back creates higher requirements for side armor. In T-14 "full" side armor cover capsule and autoloader, while engine is not as well protected from sides as autoloader or crew. This means saved weight. In Merkavas armor layout is dictated by a need to cover crew compartment, ammunition, and frontal part of tank. This can lead to higher weight of a tank in general. Maybe thats why they don't really change suspension, that partially work as armor, while still being suspension. If they would have used torsion bars, big amount of lower side surface/space would have been free to mount armor, but maybe because of the additional weight of that armor they never bothered with those changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter_Sobchak Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 I've never heard of burning a tank in effigy before... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 Looks like new heavy APC is tested in Israel. Merkava Siman 2 chassis, turret removed, some kind of superstructure with cage armor and lots of antennas (jammers?) installed. Marsh 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsh Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 Looks like new heavy APC is tested in Israel. Merkava Siman 2 chassis, turret removed, some kind of superstructure with cage armor and lots of antennas (jammers?) installed. Hi LoooSeR, Have you seen the article contained in the link below? http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4717422,00.html Cheers Marsh LoooSeR 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted October 28, 2015 Report Share Posted October 28, 2015 I don't see any external changes to ex-ammunition compartment. Soldiers located in the middle of vehicle and in rear part of the hull, or just in the middle, inside of this superstructure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter_Sobchak Posted October 29, 2015 Report Share Posted October 29, 2015 Hi LoooSeR, Have you seen the article contained in the link below? http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4717422,00.html Cheers Marsh So is the M48/60 series of MBTs the only tanks the Israelis have not turned into an APC at some point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsh Posted October 29, 2015 Report Share Posted October 29, 2015 Hi Walter, Only one M48/M60 was ever converted. It was a competitor to the Centurion based Nakpadon LIC carrier. The Centurion was used as the suspension was easier to repair after damage from mines and the fact that the M60 continued in use as an MBT in the IDF, beyond the timeline of the Centurion. Thus fewer were available for conversion into carriers. Surprisingly, despite Kangaroo RAM carriers, the IDF never used the Sherman as an infantry carrier. Cheers Marsh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.