|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Military Technology General Discussion M1A2 vs. Merkeva, Leopard II|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
New Member |
Like the M1A2, the Challenger 2 has latest-generation Chobham armour (called Dorchester) which incorporates heavy metals (whether it's DU or tungsten isn't known for sure since it's top secret). The Challenger 2 also has a separate thermal viewer and rangefinder for the commander.
|
|||
|
|
New Member |
Theres two you have to worry about when it comes to Tanks, And thats the crew and the armor, Those two tanks are about the same inso much they both fire the 120mm rd. Any tanker will tell you that a Tank is only as good as it's crew. Its who sees who first and the distance the tank will fire. With the M1 series it's if you can see the target, you can hit the target. I'll let you figer the rest out for your self.
|
|||
|
|
New Member |
Wrongo buddy the Merkava is like the rest of Israels equippment a collection of other countries developments. It is infact a british Centurion turned backwards and given a low profile turrent. You came up with some spiffy little ideas to throw in it but the tank as it was and still is is someone elses design reinterprited. Even your assault rifle the Galil and Tavor are taken from other weapons and cobbled together into a new design. This isnt a bad thing countries have been doing it for years. But DONT claim that its all your idea when your stepping on the back of someone elses hard work and insperation. My big question is why my country is still sending Israel money when it doesnt need it. Really ide love to know why my tax dollars should go to buying you new tanks insted of staying here to help jumpstart healthcare or improve schools.
<<This is incorrect the Merkava was desgined from from scratch from the treds up. Its desigen was based on Israeli needs and all the knowledge learned from Israel's unmerous conlflicts. The only part of hte Merkava that is forgien is the engine which is US/German developed. A few small components are also imported but they are small fry to the over-all production of the Merkava which is all Israeli, they even exports many Merkava components.>> |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Dude, where did you get that information from?
Yeah, okay, the Merkava has treads... So does the M1, and every other tank! So, I guess the 'Abrams' is just a rip-off of the Female Mark I, right? Any similarity between the Merkava, and the Centurion, is purely coincidental, and not particularly relevant. As to spending your tax dollars here at home, rather than 'wasting' them on defending some 'foriegn country'? First, a LOT of Israelis have family in the United States, and a lot of Americans like to go to 'the Holy Lands' for their vacation... Do you really think that would be permitted if they were under Syrian occupation? Second, it is the 'at home' spending, on badly flawed, highly socialist programs like public health care, and mis-education (Sorry, I live in Chicago, what else can I call it?), that are the waste. An awful lot of OUR Military Hardware comes from Israeli companies (through U.S. Subcontractors, of course), and we benefit greatly from their experience and knowledge... |
|||
|
Member |
The original Merkava engine/transmission was the same engine/transmission used in the M-60 and modified M-48. This powerpack was retro-fitted to the Centurions in Israeli service. What's wrong with keeping a single reliable engine common to all your tanks in inventory? (The Mk 4 uses the more powerful German designed engine and 5 speed transmission.)
As to the suspension system used on the Merkava, it does use the same external double bogies as the Centurion. But to say it's just "a Centurion turned backwards" is like saying an M1A1 is just a Panther tank! And I do believe that the entire fire control package and gun stabilization is an IMI design. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
We do not just give Israel $$. They are grants & loans that Israel is constantly paying back. Some is paid back in cash & some is used / ear marked to by US military equipment. Over the years these purchases have helped keep US arms companies finacially healthy to the detrament of Israeli arms companies. We have also garnished a lot of useful info from the Israelis in urban combat that has probably helped saved many of our soldiers in Iraq. It is a 2 way street that both sides need to be greatful for.
|
|||
|
Member |
Well I believe in the end it is about experience. An experienced tank crew knows how to make use of the advantages of its vehicules and hide the weaknesses.
For this reason Rommel ordered to shoot escaping tank crews. A dirty practice but the brits soon learned it was right to do so. No tank is as important as an experienced crew. One final note: to argue that the LEO is not battle proven is nonesense. The entire physical concept of the tank didnt change much since WWII. The rest is pure terrain practice! BTW: Are tank battles nowadays still possible? I mean without air intervention and other deceisive factors? And isnt the gun of the M1A2 still a development of Rheinmetall and still built under german license? This message has been edited. Last edited by: capital12, |
|||
|
|
Member |
Dear Member, WHAT!!!!!! Many in Israel would find the statement about the Merkava seeing action in the 1973 War. Jack E. Hammond |
|||
|
|
Member |
Dear Members,
A few points from the designer of the Merkava a General Tal I believe. The Merkeva was designed based on the IDF experience in the 1973 War on the Syrian front. The IDF discovered that the older British Centurions with their older suspension system (more like the suspension on the Sherman tank of WW2) was far better a rockie and lava bed terrain of northern Israel and Syria border area of the Golan Heights. Also the IDF wanted a tank where armor protection and firepower was more important than speed mobility for use in areas other than southern Israel. That door in the back of the Merkeva. Everyone thinks it was designed to make the Merkeva into an emergency APC when needed. Wrong. The doors was to allow fast ammunition resupply. In fact the Merkeva can be resupplied with main cannon ammo like changing a magazine of a rifle (it is an over simplification but that is the easiest way to describe it). Finally, for those that are interested. those turretless tank like vehicles are heavy APCs. That means an APC that has the same armor protection for the crew and infantry section as a main battle tank. Also, the Israelis have recently converted some older Merkevas to a super-heavy APCs. The name begins with an N but I can't remember. There was an internet article about it down in WEAPONS but the jerks in charge of Military.COM eliminated all messages over 180 days without notice. Below is some thumbnails (click to see full size) of the standard heavy APC that was converted from E. German T-55s and the new super heavy APC. Jack E. Hammond     |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Sorry, Capital, but why do you insist on being a complete idiot?
How can you say that the Leopard II (a fine tank, don't get me wrong) is 'combat-proven'? It certainly wasn't available in World War II, and the number of changes between the Panther (I assume that'w what you're referring to) and the Leopard II are too great to possibly count! If nothing else, the Gun is much larger (120mm vs. 75mm), the engine is much larger, the armor is much heavier, and the Electronics Suite on any of these tanks far overwhelms what the designers of World War II tanks could even begin to imagine! And, yes, tank battles today are possible... Though, without massive Air Superiority, I'm afraid the M1 Abrams would be in serious trouble, because it's even more dependent on it's fuel train than the others, and even one of the people working for Saddam (ex-Soviet) knew that to be a weak spot... {One of the reasons why we made sure we did have that level of Air Superiority...} Now, such battles are unlikely, because most of the peoplw with significant amounts of armor are friends and allies, but that could always change... And, even if a 'Classic Tank Duel' never again occurs, that doesn't make the Tank worthless! It's still a very effective 'Fire Support Platform', and 'Mobile Pillbox'. The exact form and nature of the Tank may change (as it always does), but it will have a use for a very long time... |
|||
|
|
Member |
The idea of putting a mortar in a tank is not a new idea, and it wasn't first done by the Israelis. Most notably, the Sherman Mk IC, IIC, and VC had a 2-inch mortar in the turret, which was loaded and fired from inside. |
|||
|
Member |
In the case of the best MBT. I put my money on the good ol' M1A2 Abrams.
|
|||
|
|
New Member |
First, there is no such thing as 'fair-play' in a battle. Only if you have a serious death wish. If that is the case, please join the enemy.
Since none of this tanks was 'officially' engagend in a duel, we can't say which one is better. Even if they were engaged in a duel, you can't be sure that the results could be repeated. Here, the T-34 fame comes to mind. As the T-34 made its first appearance, it devestated the German's Army Group Nord lines, but after the Germans managed to develop a counter-tactics, the Soviets:German tank vs. tank odds tilted to German side (in inflicted losses to the enemy). Not because of bad equipement, but because of low training and different equipement strategies (Germans training their crews and tank commanders, giving them standard equipement, while Soviets used masses and gave them few pieces of different equipement - ie every tank with a radio vs. 1 radio per tank company - that ment 'kill the Ivan with the antenna and then finnish the rest off'). There are too many unknowns in a battle to be able to recreate the exact environment for each duel. Second, M1 and L2 were designed to fight Soviet armor in plains of Europe and US (WITH Air superiority). Merkava was developed to fight Arab (Soviet/Russian/Western) armor in Israel and its vicinity and support army incursions into highly hostile urban environment. M1 and L2 were designed based on 'probable' enemy, while Merkava was designed with clear enemy in sight. It should be noted, that while M1 and L2 are very user-friendly, they were not designed by tankers, but by design teams and theorists, while Merkava was designed, produced and used by almost the same people (yea, ok, I'm still impressed by Latrun, ok! ;-) ). I'm sure every crew would fare well if it were in a combat situation that it was drilled for. Alas, the enemy has the anoying ability to not act like a good boy and follow the actions as he did in your drills. Germans found that out about Soviets, when the Soviets got their **** together and started the march to Berlin. Third, there were only two tank battles worth the name, El Alamein and Kursk. OK, there were four El Alamein 1&2 and Kursk and Prokhorovka, but the second were both part of Operation Zitadelle and the first two were mainly between Brits and Afrika Korps. When [enter tank name here] will take part in such a (leveled teams) battle, THEN you can say it was battle proven. Technically, one could say that Israelis had such a battle when they fought their wars against their neighbours (The Six-Day War, and more importaintly, The Yom Kippur War). In Yom Kippur War, Israeli air superiority was hampered by SAM systems of the Syrian and Egyptian armies, so there was more ground combat as in The Six-Day War. But NO Merkava tanks were used in this war (as Pantherman suggested), they were used (Merkava Mk. I) in '82. The 6Day War showed what a trained tank crew can do with their 'inferior' technology against state of the art technology with n00bs as crew. But, alas, Arabs used Saggers and RPGs, so the Israeli armour was useless as attack asset. Infantry (YEA, baby, grunts RULEZ!) made the decisive strikes against the Arab armies. But the tanks were the ones that stoped the Arab armour thrust into Israel. Practically, no 3rd or 4th generation tank was used in a tank battle, and that was what they were designed for. As much as US propagates its army, it never faced a real enemy. 3rd World countries, sadly, don't count as real threats for US army. The modern armour (M1, L2, Challenger, Leclerc, T-80, T-90, T-99, ...) is a dead end. For all practicall use, tanks are weapons of oppression, good to scare the occupied population, but faced with a wide sphere of weapon systems indigenous in a modern war theatre, they are pretty useless. I'm talking about leveled teams here, not Air, Navy, Army and Space Forces against Pete the Pigmey . I think overkill is an understatement here. Lepi pozdravi, osti. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
I was right with you, until you hit that nonsense about the Tank being obsolete!
'Weapons of Oppression'? Okay, but stop and think about all the people in this world who desperately NEED to be oppressed! Yeah, back in the seventies, I thought it was terrible that the Shah of Iran, and his Secret Police, were 'oppressing' the people of Iran... Now that I've had a good look at who he was oppressing, though, I kind of miss the guy!  The Palestineans who danced in the street after hearing about the 9/11 attacks? Yup, they need oppressing! The 'poor citizens' of Lebanon, who bombed the barracks our Marines were in, and who would rather launch unguided rockets into Israel, than get ahead in the world? Yup, they need oppressing! Sorry, I'd really like it if there were a better way, but we haven't found one, yet! I'm really worried that we're going to try and convert to an all light infantry force, and then not have any heavy armor when we really need it! Yeah, as long as all we're dealing with is insurgencies in urban areas, the Tank is a limited weapon system... But, the enemy who fights the next war with us can't be relied upon to fight it in the exact way we're best prepared for! |
|||
|
|
New Member |
It's an oppinion, and You know the deal with them. Cost effectivness trend is going toward wheeled platforms, that remotelly resemble tanks. Is that a good trend? I don't know. But I seriouselly doubt that pencil pusher going over costs of an operation will see it 'justified' to spend 'so much' for a simple OOTW.
I guess You are an American? Balkans, Chechnya, Darfur, Rwanda, Timor, Tibet, ... There are other crisis, where US is not involved. So, please, don't make this a US thing.
Really? Tell me, why didn't NATO intervene in Hungary and Czechoslovakia? Since Soviets did the same things that are so no-no in Iran, Iraq, Saudiland and Lebanon? Was it because of those big rockets pointed at them? It seems that you need a big stick in order to keep 'freedom forces' away. And it helps if you have no oil. And that being the case, a better way was found, diplomacy. Imagine that, you can use diplomacy and consumer goods with Soviets (Empire of Evil), but you can't use it with ragheads. Those ICBMs really make a difference.
Yea, I share the worries. Our army will mothball our armour. OK, Slovenia's geography is not a tankers paradise, but ever since '91, I feel a wee bit naked when faced with enemies armour, and I'm holding only an AK. OTOH, what are the chances of NATO facing a real army in the next 25-50 years? Russia is on our side (at least till we give them money), Arabs ... well, they're more into suicide bombing, China is ... a long way out there, and if they decide to boost up their army and attack in numbers, we really don't stand a chance. Unless we make India fight them. And India could pose a threat, but more to Pakistan and China. So, there is really no big demand on modern tanks, and future crisis can be diverted by other means, not armour. And if by some miracle the Martians attack ... I doubt they're gonna be all for tank battles. ;-) LP osti |
|||
|
|
New Member |
1. Oh, the pencil pushers love light armor, wheeled vehicles, light infantry, and all that stuff...
Until you try and use it in a real war, and not only have to replace all the equipment that gets blown up, but also pay all those death benefits, expenses for recruiting new troops, and so on.... 2. Sorry, yes, I'm an American... but, really, the people who need oppressing are pretty much enemies of everybody, including each other. Witness how well the various Palestinean factions get along with each other! People who are determined to kill everyone who disagrees with them don't make good neighbors for anyone! 3. We *wanted* to intervene in Hungary and Cxecholslovakia, and it wasn't the Soviet nukes (alone) that stopped us! The Soviets of that time not only had more tanks than we did, but bigger guns and better armor, backed by a lot more artillery! If we'd have gone in, we'd have lost badly... As to 'diplomacy'... It's only effective if you're arguing from a position of Strength! When we bombed the North Vietnamese, they wanted to talk peace... When we stopped, they left the talks! {Just one example, among many...} Nowadays, 'diplomacy', where the Middle East is concerned, at least, means "Go ahead and talk while we re-arm... As soon as we have more ammo, we'll go back to doing what we were going to do anyways!" We keep trying to 'give peace a chance', but it just hasn't worked! 4. The 'chances' of NATO facing a 'real' enemy anytime soon don't seem very high... but, we're not going to be getting rid of the Abrams for at least 10 years of that period! And, forecasting more than 10 years ahead is a fool's game... Just because you can't 'see' something coming up, doesn't mean that it won't! |
|||
|
|
New Member |
It allways comes down to the proverbial pencil pusher's idea of war. I remember in '91, when our army had to rearm, the procurement people bought everything they could get their hands on. It was hard under embargo, but they managed to buy some good arms. Mostly from Israel and Singapore. At the time we really didn't give a damn what we had, just as long it stopped the M-84 (Yugoslav T-72) and T-55. The T-55 was not so scary, since most of the TO (like National Guard) were trained to fight them, but the M-84 was better and had more defensive systems, which gave a pretty good picture to the crew where and what was fired at them. If pencil pushers would have their way, we would face the YPA (Yugslav People's Army) with AK and RPK, rifle greandes and AT handgrenades. Yea, we spent more money that we were supposed to, but for that money, we were actually capable to destroy some YPA tanks, not just stop them. That's one of the reasons why the war in Slovenia ended after 10 days.
Nobody said that running a country is easy. As I said before, M1 and L2 were made to fight Soviet armour, Merkava was ment to support infantry in incursion type conflicts AND fight tanks. The OOTW idea doesn't include tanks, but it does need some muscle. Italians made the Centauro 8x8 (AT wheeled 105mm platform), Piranha series feature some nice concepts, Piranha 8x8 MGS being really nice, SEP concept and the concept of all-electric tank (advanced SEP concept) are the future. The technology will advance and in the next 15 years fuel hogs will probably be obsolete. Will a SEP or 10x10 Piranha be able to compete with M1, L2 or Merkava? Add-on armour and reliable engines will do wonders for wheeled platforms. With advances in ceramic and bio armour we could achieve more protection with less weight. The oil crisis might force some companies to "quickly invent" reliable fuel-cell technology, advance power packages and advance Energizer bunnies... I mean batteries. OR, some gun-heads might see the new technologies as godsend and start upgrading existing tanks. As for the M1 vs. L2 vs. Merkava topic, ... lets pitch EU, Israel and USA against eachother and we'll see. Or better, get a company of M1/L2/Merkava on a field, and let them fight it out. Othervise we can argue till the end of time and still get nowhere. LP osti |
|||
|
|
Member |
|
|||
|
|
New Member |
I'd really want to know which 'wars' does the author mean. And what was meant under 'whatever'. If he meant the Iqaq war ('90-'91 and 2003-present), then I'd disagree with him. This were major armed conflict that could be compared with David and Goliath fight. Where David used an assault rifle and Goliath was stoned and naked. Theoretically, Goliath could fall on David, thus squishing the little feller, but only if David were stupid enough to come into close range. And if with 'whatever' he meant the Iraqi arsenal, ... the T-72 and its wariants being the most modern tanks available to the Iraqi Army. And since the cohesivenes of the Iraqi Army was basically shattered by Allied artillery and Air Force, the effectiveness of their armour was not at 100%.
And the same conflicts showed that, when faced with superior numbers of inferior crews, but superior technology, the numbers start to tell. The basic dillema being, how does the 1 vs. 5 tank duel play out? Add the infantry, arty, fly-boyz and the occasional FF, and you start seeing that even the proffesionals and hi-tech doesn't stand up to the challenge. I agree with the statistical and technical evaluations, even the crew factor, but I seriouselly doubt that everyone will see the the same ending, otherwise we would not have wars, if the enemy saw that our side has bigger and better guns and that he doesn't stand a chance against it. LP osti |
|||
|
|
New Member |
---> Since I am german, I would like to comment on this and the cons to Leo2: 1) Yes, it is right and my country (qand its leos) never had combat experience since 60 year (same to DK, Swe, NL etc.) but... 2) ...I am proud of this ! Killing can never be a fact being proud of, but peace and European reunification, political, economical and monetary stabilication may be provided by NATO Forces saving the western block, but in fact THE PEOPLE did the freedom step - peaceful !! And if some german conscript soldiers (as I was for myself in 1988-1989) did play their part in that game, they always can be proud of it ! 3) Today, the german army is a very small one , compared to the US moloch, but still effective when keeping in mind the limited money resource we have(only 1,5% of GNP for defense, compared to 5-10% (or more) of US or UK) and the german army today is far away from beeing a conscript army, since now 85% of all soldiers in combat forces are longer serving volunteers, especially those aimed for NATO or UN missions. Fighting in a terrorists environment with house to house struggle cannot be fought with a tank. You can destroy the whole Lebanon with heavy mortar, artillery and air strikes, but you need to clean all those fuc*** holes in the house where the small arms and missiles of the terrorists are burried. (same in IRAQ with the enemy mines etc.) Therefore a tank is today much more overestimated in 21st century counter terror fighting than many enthuisiasts might think. It is a weapon of psychology : big and strong and causing fear , but to fight well experienced "holy war" nbelieving terrorists you need one thing : Well educated, well armed house fighting infantrymen. So the best small infantry weapon for use in any weather under ansy small room conditions could be more decicive in destroying enemy terror holes than the best tank. And there we can join the discussion about this and of course my answer here is : AK74 (reliability , availability) and Heckler&Koch (G36, MP7, P8/P15, MG4, in any terms of modernity with the world of PDW) In terms of personal security look at the german DINGO/MUNGO army workload patrol truck family providing "average patrol day" safety to german forces in afghanistan and former Jugoslavia. Well equipped against mines and small arms, splitters, suicide bombing etc. (Well proven by one event in Afghanistan, wher a tank mine hit a DINGO, the motor blow away but the personal-cell was undamaged, leaving all soldiers in it unhurt !) The new german AIF "Puma" will make heavy use of this technology too. German forces support such industry developments (MAN (see UK order !) Mercedes Benz and Krauss Kaffay are worldwide well known if not the best in this field) heavily, but even the best Humveee "avarage patrol day US vehicle" is quite unprotected against mines and mortar fragments oer suicide bombers ! And as far as I know the US Army is not developing such new vehicles (putting only more and more and more armmour plates on existing ones making the vehicle heavy and unmanouverable) One final word to the many statements to the Leo 2 as it is not combat proven : The fact, that it saw no real combat cannot be an evidence for beeing inferior to C2 or M1, the only thing you can say locically is : You cannot know about how it might appear in combat and cannot make any proven statements to this, only speculations. Greetings Patrick from Germany |
|||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Military Technology General Discussion M1A2 vs. Merkeva, Leopard II
