Merkava vs M1 Abrams

[MkCanuck9r]

I like the Merk, always did from the 1st time i saw it! Very good design concept

[sargeent shlomi]

hello i am sargeent shlomi,

i am a driver of a merkava v 4.
i can grnteed to you all that the merkava v4 is better then the m1 mbt,
i cant say way but you can be sure fot that.


"the man in the tank will win"

[MiaG]

You have my respect and love for defending isra.

[Christian for Israel]

this thread is worthless without pics.

[DrWilsonsStudent]

Originally Posted by Topmaul

The problem with the M-1 is fuel consumption and that huge infra-red signature.

I've heard that the IR sig has been taken care of more or less.


Overall, the "which is better" question is kinda pointless. All are great tanks and I don't think that any one would win any time, any day against the other. Most likely, it would be whoever gets off the first shot.

[haamimhagolan]

Originally Posted by DrWilsonsStudent

I've heard that the IR sig has been taken care of more or less.

Overall, the "which is better" question is kinda pointless. All are great tanks and I don't think that any one would win any time, any day against the other. Most likely, it would be whoever gets off the first shot.

The "which is better" question depends very much on your tactics, and how you intend to fight.

[haamimhagolan]

Let me start by saying that I am not an expert in tank warfare. Although I have worked with individuals who do deal with heavy armour, most of the weapons that I deal with have wings.

That being said, the following is a brief history behind the Merkava tank.

The original Merkava Mk1 was developed during the 1970s, at the same time that the US was developing the M1 Abrams, Germany was developing the Leopard II, and Britain was developing the Challenger. Although all of these tanks were under development at around the same time, their designs reflect very different emphases on the part of their developers.

The Leopard II and Challenger (and most subsequent tank designs, like the LeClerc, Challenger 2 and so forth), were fairly conventional in their layout, featuring what at the time was the latest in armor protection, targeting electronics, tank projectiles, and were all propelled by a big, 12-cylinder diesel engine.

The M1 Abrams was unique in its emphasis on mobility. It is the only tank to come out of this era to incorporate a gas turbine powerplant (basically a helicopter engine transplanted into a tank chassis), providing it with superior road speed, but with enormous fuel demands and limited range. Other tanks would later experiment with this approach decades later, but the Abrams was the first to reach production.

The Merkava, on the other hand, did not place the same emphasis on mobility. In fact, the original Merkava Mk1 was underpowered for its day, relative to the Leopard II, Challenger and most other tanks. What set the Merkava apart was its armored protection.

The concept behind the Merkava was the brainchild of Israeli tank general Israel Tal. The principals were quite simple:

• Tanks get hit during combat. That's reality. They are not invincible chariots - so plan on getting hit.
• Tanks can be repaired. Virtually every Israeli tank in the 1973 Yom Kippur War was disabled at one point or another during the conflict. The Israelis were able to repair the vast majority of them, however, and return them to service.
• Tanks can also be replaced.
• People cannot be replaced.

Those were the guiding principals behind the Merkava. Unlike virtually every other tank produced to this day, the Merkava was designed with the engine in front, and the crew behind. The only other modern example the I am aware of is the Swedish S-tank - which was designed for nordic operations. In the M1, if the tank is hit in a head-on-engagement, and the armor is pierced, the crew can be assured that they will be dead. In the Merkava, in the same engagement, the tank will be disabled - its engine will be destroyed - but the crew will survive.

Israel is a small nation, and does not have the vast manpower reserves that the United States can count on. For Israel, crew protection was the essential ingredient.

Later versions of the Merkava added mobility and firepower - as well as updates to the electronic targeting system, and new generations of Israeli-developed armor. But the essential layout of the Merkava, and the underlying philosophy, has remained unchanged from day one.

[dzone]

I doubt tha Abrams could drive it's way on Golan as Merkava does ! Isn't that Merkava has bumpers disind for rocky terean of Golan and send of the Negev?

[TankHunter]

Originally Posted by dzone

I doubt tha Abrams could drive it's way on Golan as Merkava does ! Isn't that Merkava has bumpers disind for rocky terean of Golan and send of the Negev?

The biggest problem with rocky terrain is that you tend to break your tracks in it. I think I remember hearing that the Merk has some modifications from your average tank that reduces the problem. But just don't take my word on it.

[dzone]

Originally Posted by TankHunter

The biggest problem with rocky terrain is that you tend to break your tracks in it. I think I remember hearing that the Merk has some modifications from your average tank that reduces the problem. But just don't take my word on it.

[YOUTUBE]

[BrittleSteel]

Originally Posted by TankHunter

The biggest problem with rocky terrain is that you tend to break your tracks in it. I think I remember hearing that the Merk has some modifications from your average tank that reduces the problem. But just don't take my word on it.

Ever see the video of the Merkava 4 chewing up the distance over gagged rocks of the Golan. It can do it, trust me, though probably not for a long consistent time, but long enough.

[haamimhagolan]

I thought that for the sake of completeness, I should add a chart comparing the different versions of the Merkava, as well as one that compares the Merkava to the Abrams M1, and other tanks.

The first chart is a comparison between the different versions of the Merkava to reach production. As should be evident, over the years the Merkava has increased in firepower and horsepower, while at the same time constantly updating its armored protection.
Merkava Versions.jpg

The second chart compares the Merkava to some of the "leading" western tank models in service today, as well as to the Russian T-72S and T-80U tanks models.
MBT Comparison.jpg

A few additional notes may also be in order:

• The data shown for the Challenger 2 and Leopard II is for the versions currently fielded with their respective national armies - not proposed upgrades that have yet to reach service or for which only a handful were produced for export.
• Among the things that the tables don't convey, is the difference in fire control systems between the various tank models. The Merkava Mk 2 (105 mm gun) actually performed quite well against Syrian T-72 tanks during the 1982 Lebanon War (125 mm gun), in large part due to its superior sight and fire control system. The Merkava was able to accurately pick-off the T-72 at ranges where the T-72's targeting system couldn't get an accurate shot. The US experienced the same phenomena during Operation Desert Storm in 1991.
• The ground pressure values are all calculated, based on tread width and surface length on the ground - rather than relying on manufacturer-supplied data. The manufacturer data appears to be less consistent - with some supplying values for a fully loaded vehicle and some providing values for an empty tank.
• Armored protection is something that is difficult to quantify. Every manufacturer will claim that they have the best system available. Experience has shown, however, that some nations know how to build tanks (US, Israel) and some do not (France).
• Among the most important performance parameters for a combat-ready tank, are its ability to overcome rough terrain. As the various measures of battlefield agility should illustrate (gradient, side slope, vertical obstacle and trench), the Merkava Mk 4 stands head and shoulders above its peers.

Sources:
Jane's Armour and Artillery 2006-2007, ed by Christopher Foss (Surrey, United Kingdom, Jane's Information Group, 2006)

[MkCanuck9r]

Excellent post, thanks for the info. I like the Merkava Concept,
she's a sweet looking piece of gear well developed from experience.
But I am glad for our Canadian Tankers who finally are getting new Leopard II Tanks.

Our Leopard I's are so old I was a kid when they bought them and they
are still fielding them until the L II's come online. The L II was good choice
for us as its really NATO's Tank of choice so parts are common and its not
a gas guzzler like the M1A2's as we don't have unlimited funds here.

All in all the big three are awesome tanks: Merkava, L II and M1A2 each with its own unique strengths.

[[MakkabI]]

Looks like Leopard are better than Merkava? no?

[MkCanuck9r]

Its all relative really. Each Country develops its Tanks based on its own
perceived requirements and experiences. I like the Merkava concept allot,
but Canada would never buy them as we are NATO oriented so its quite
normal for us to buy a NATO (non-US) Tank.

The last US tank we fielded was the horrible, but plentiful, M4 Sherman and
we learned not to buy any more junk from them The Germans are well known
tank manufacturers of excellent quality and really the M1's and Leopards stem from
the same tank concept of a 1970's joint Tank design prototype, so;

Its all relative...

[haamimhagolan]

Originally Posted by [MakkabI]

Looks like Leopard are better than Merkava? no?

The Leopard II has a better horsepower-to-weight ratio, but the Merkava has better rough-terrain mobility (Merkava has better gradient, side slope, and trench-crossing capability. The only parameter where the Leopard II has an advantage is for vertical obstacle height).

As for armored protection, like I said, every manufacturer will tell you his technology is better. What should be evident, however, is that the Merkava is a heavier machine. I'll let you figure out why that is.

[Avtomat9966]

Im a M1A2 crewmember while i've never been inside a Merkava, i've seen it, heard what it can do. I think it would come down to whatever crew is better if the two tanks ever fought one another. Both have their down sides, the abrams is a gas hog and the merkava's turret ring is wide open for a shot.

I know I wouldn't want to fight either one.

And the abrams we sell to other countries don't have the Chobham composite armor. We sell them cheap steel armored ones so if we ever have to fight them they die easier.

I've been deployed to Iraq with the abrams, and i've never been happier about being in one, they would try and try to blow us up but couldn't do anything. Every once and a while when they stack 10 or 20 155mm shells on top of one another they will mess the tank up, but rarely did they ever hurt or kill the crewmembers.

[BrittleSteel]

Thanks for the post Avtomat. I was in a Merkava.

That is core doctrine of the Israeli Tank Corp.

"It's the man inside the tank that will bring victory"

[Avtomat9966]

Originally Posted by BrittleSteel

Thanks for the post Avtomat. I was in a Merkava.

That is core doctrine of the Israeli Tank Corp.

"It's the man inside the tank that will bring victory"

That makes sense. You can have all the bells and wistles you want, if your crew can't load or put the gun on target then your useless.

[Israel48]

Personally I think the Merkava is better because it can handle rough sandy type terrain better than Abrams! Abrams I think is suited more to a smoother terrain!