I was in Israel last week and got into a bit of an argument with a few Israeli tankers over the supposed supremacy of the fire-control systems of their new Merkeva over the M1A2. Not being a tanker myself, I am afraid I didn't have enough experience to adequately defend the M1 family, so I am curious - could anybody out there with some experiece in the matter inform me as to how the M1A2 stacks up against the Merkeva (Survivability, Weapons Systems, etc) and the Leopard II? I read a review of the Leopard which ranks it slightly higher than the M1 family.
The Merkava has components made in Germany and several other countries...so I don't know how "Israeli" it is. Haven't a few of them been knocked out by folks on the West Bank, or Gaza... with RPGs and Molotov cocktails? I saw a Web site where they were talking much crap about the prowess of the Merkava... I think it's a good tank, but I don't think it's better than a M-1A2 , or a Leopard II; especially the newest models. My main concern with an M-1 would be that it requires a huge amount of fuel to remain operational... many countries don't have the logistics to keep them "fed."
While I was in Germany, there was a competition between the tankers of the Us, Canada, Germany and the UK... the Canadians won, with a German tank...
I don't see how any one can say that the Leopard 2 is a better tank than the M1a2. Especially since it has never been combat tested. It would also be hard to compare it to a Merkeva since the IDF has not fought any significant opponents since their little adventure into Libeia back in the 80's. I know personally, if I had enemy tanks coming over the dune I'd want an M-1 giving me cover fire.
Thanks FW190D - I've actually done a little research since I posted the original question - you are right when you note that several of the components of the tank are built in other countries, but the Merkeva itself appears to be organic to Israel - it is constructed in Israel by Israeli Defense Industries. It utilizes the same 120mm smoothbore as found on the Leopard/Abrams/Challenger/etc. As far as I know they've only been knocked out in the W. Bank by 100kg packages of explosives placed under the road - striking the tank's vulnerable underside. As far as the other components of the tank - I was under the impression that the technology stuff was actually made in Israel itself and just wanted to see if anybody knew how it "really" stacked up against the Abrams. I was surprised by your experience with the Canadians though.
Also, Bubbabink70, you raise a good point when you mention that the Leopard hasn't really been tested in combat - the analysis I was reading called the Abrams the best combat-tested tank in the world, but the Leopard the best tank in some sort of nebulous theoretical way, I guess.
...tough to say "which is tougher" the Abrams or the Merkeva. My impression is that the armor is similar. The 3 tanks that we've lost were to do 100kgs, blowing up under the tank. Other than that they really havent been tested in a real combat situation. One interesting aspect is the engine being placed in the front. the idea being that massive amount of metal up front further protects the crew.
In the end....its the crew, their motivation and their training
Right now according to Armor Magazine the top tank in the world is the Leopard 2A6. The 2A6 has an upgraded gun that places it slightly over the M1A2 SEP.For my two cents I'll take any of the tanks mentioned in this topic.
I asked a friend in the 1st Cav if the Merkava Mk4 could beat an M1A2. He gave me a point by point comparison, comparing speed, ammo capacity, power to weight ratio, secondary weaponry, the merkava's mortar.
His conclusion was that "the Abrams MBT would slap the **** out of a merkava"
Another point to consider is the engine. While yes it's a gas hog, the M1 is also extremely quiet. I was talking to my boss who was prior army intel. She told about how they were nearly run over during a night training op because the first indication that they had of the tanks approach was when it smashed through the trees fifty feet ahead of them.
Forget the tanks: All of them are excellent. What makes the difference is how one uses them. The isrealis have trained in manual fire control for years, and we have not.
Someone told me that in the 73 war that Is tankers engaged using battlesight, without rangefinders, thus saving precious seconds in first round engagement times. One would think that an IS Mk using battlesight would slaughter a M1 using electronics by getting the first round off.
Long range gunfire would probably be pretty even.
Those three tanks are great if everything is working. If automated firecontrol fails, then it's all about training, and the Is have the best "primative" tanke engagement training in the world.
Those three tanks are my favorites. The Merkava Mk1 was combat tested in '73 against T-62s and T-72s. The armour, which included diesel fuel (I haven't figured how that one works) was easily capable of taking the punishment from the latest in arab operated russian equipment (I hope they read Russian). Only one thing bothers me about the M1A2 - the laser designator can burn out uner extensive use, while those on the Leopard 2 (all models) shut down temporarily when overheated. The Leo.2 is also better optics wise for firing manually. Not to discredit the Abrams or Merkava, but the newest Leo is nicer, incl. a longer gun barrel for higher velocity. IDI was considering designing another homegrown tank with a 140mm main gun! But beause of such high secrecy, it's hard to tell what the newest Merkava's armour is made of - every model has made improvements to it. DU armour is nasty for the Abrams to have - but it is penetrable by the latest AT shells. The Leo. has some shady secrecy about what they have for armour, so estimations would tell you that the have some advantages over the M1A2 and some important disadvantages. Just remember, a lot of European countries tested the M1A2, Leopard2A5, and Challenger2 (no one says much about those). The tank of choice was either home grown or the Leo. Let top end advisors choose and the soldiers hope they're not playing politics.
The Swedes have a highly modified Leopard II in their line up... It features additional armor, special rounds... both armor piercing and high explosive... I think the fire controls and gun itself is improved also... I have read about it on some web sites... it appears to be quite impressive.
Leopard 2IS is a Swedish manufactured Leopard 2, which have extencive improvments on armor, new type of armor aswell as additional armor both ontop, infront and the back of the tank. About 3 tons of more armor was added compared to the Leopard 2A5. It has improved firecontroll systems, comunications systems etc
Sweden had one of those tests that Pantherman mentioned. A simplified discription of the tests is below:
"The trials
After a decision to buy new tanks for the Royal Swedish Army had been made one of the most thorough trials of recent years started. The "competitors" were the German Leopard 2 Improved S, the French Leclerc and the American M1A2 Abrams. It was finally decided that the winner was the Krauss-Maffei Leopard 2A5 Improved S, equipped with an improved command, control, communications and intelligence system (C3I). The initial order was for 120 tanks, with deliveries to start in 1997 and all tanks to be delivered by 2002. There is an option for further orders. The British Challenger did not take part in the competition because of stupidity on the part of its manufacturer, which meant that it missed the train.
The Leo 2A5 Improved was found to be as good as the Abrams, but at a lower total cost.
Concern over the availability of spare parts and additional tanks in the event of a conflict probably influenced the decision too. In the late 1930's Sweden had ordered fighter aircraft from the United States, aircraft that were not delivered because of the start of hostilities in Europe. Or in other words, when they were needed the most, the US government decided not to deliver the planes...."
The communicatiosn systems etc mentioned above has been imporved or replaced.
Something to also mention is that the M1A2 couldnt handle our climat and tests, it broke down several times during the test. Which constributed to the choice of the Leopard 2A5.
The Leopard 2IS is sovly manufacured by Swedish companys.
Something funny is that the warranty of such a tank is less then of a computer you buy in the stores even though the tanks cost significantly more. At least this was the case of the German made tank. It was given with 18 months warranty on each tank dilivered by Krauss Maffei Wegman.
Its one hell of a tank in my views, of all those times I've had a look at it (systems, structure etc)
EDIT: Note that the information quoted isnt offical publicly released information so everything isnt correct, but over all.
EDIT2: I never got to the real point of this topic, all three are good tanks and they can never be compared, unless they are tested with live fire against each other and if so it would still be up to the crew as they would never be exactly the same in tactics etc, in my opinion it cant be tested.
Of all the active-duty tankers I've talked to, they've told me that in a slug out battle, the Merkava would probably win due to overall survivability, though each of those 3 tanks has some great strong points depending on which role it's being used for (defensive, offensive, long range, urban etc.)
The M8 might be a fine weapon in terms of not jamming, but like aderhbd stated earlier, it really doesn't offer what the troops are in desperate need of: a bullet with stopping power. Solder of Fortune did a feature on Barrett's new M468 in their latest issue, and other articles can be found online. This rifle is chambered for the 6.8mm remington round which offers increased range, accuracy and stopping power over the 5.56mm. Any new rifle that the military considers, including the M468 will be free from jamming, so that is not a reason for selection. The M468 is already being evaluated by various military units who are assisting in the development, and is available for civilian purchase.
I agree with the post that noted that training and not equipment wins battles. As we sit now, the best trained and most operationally experienced tankers in the world are those of the U.S., the U.K. and Israel. Since each of these forces fields an excellent MBT, the specific circumstances of the fight would mean a lot. Specifications mean a lot but crew motivation, skill and so forth mean more. Our guys in WW2 lost a lot of Shermans doing it, but they managed on many occasions to beat German tankers in superior equipment. With a little help from their friends in the artillery and air force, that is!
The Merkava was designed for the very specific conditons of fighting seen by IDF ground forces in urban combat. That is why is has a mortar and also a rear-opening door. The diesel fuel is stored btween the layers of the armor. The IDF made a calculated decision that they could more afford to lose tanks than crew, based on the 1973 war after-action findings. Similarly, our M-1 series reflects our view of warfare, and is optimized for it. The Leopard is reputed to be excellent but is untested in combat. The British also make excellent tanks and know how to use them; they are also as good or better than anyone out there. They used rifled cannon still, which gives them the option of firing squash head ammo, a useful variant of shaped charge ammo.
All of these designs have things to recommend them, so pick the best trained and most experinced guys - they'll bring home the bacon every time!
