Merkava vs M1 Abrams

[benmoshe]

Originally Posted by shelory

has there bin any M1s casualties do to tank vs tank battles? cos i know there where some that where distroyed\taken out\flipped by massive IED's (1+ tun)

Yes, in the last Lebanon war...by latest individual Russian anti-tank weapon - due in part to overextention of armor and without close infantry support.

[Topmaul]

How many of you have actually driven a tank of any kind? I have. As far as which tank is better who knows it has to do with crews, support, tactics, the whole C3I thing. Could the Merk fight in Alaska or Korea? Which is better in the jungle? See what I mean? When you say which is better you have to define the contest a little more.

[tanks_alot]

I think that the whole discussion of which is better is rather childish and none of us, even me that served as a tanker, have the knowledge to answer that question.

The only safe thing to say is that the Merkava series is the best tank for the IDF, since it's costum made according to the IDF's operational needs.

[Topmaul]

Originally Posted by tanks_alot

I think that the whole discussion of which is better is rather childish and none of us, even me that served as a tanker, have the knowledge to answer that question.

The only safe thing to say is that the Merkava series is the best tank for the IDF, since it's costum made according to the IDF's operational needs.

Agreed!

[sabradan]

Originally Posted by BrittleSteel

From what I understand the Abrams is a bit better in desert, but the merkava was designed with that in mind as well (including Israeli tank training).

The Merkava is a fine tank which the greatest protected and a number of novelties. Its difficult to really say which tank is better because each was designed for the countries needs in mind.

I don't have a problem having a Merkava 3 or 4 face an Egyptian Abrams, or even a modern one.

The merkava 1 have been phased out. The 1's are pretty much gone are i heard some are being sold.

There was talk of using the hull of the Mk 1's for the new Israeli APC, Namera. But they later opted for using new hulls from the merkava 4's design.

The mkerkava 2 is still in service, but many beleive it is slowly being phased out as new merkava 4's roll off the assembly line.

One reason, among many, that it is beneficial for Israel to stick with the Merkava, and not with the abrams, is that the Merkava is locally produced. So Israel does not has such a large dependence on foreign countries for part parts for building and maintaining their tank force. Also the Merkava program has been a huge economic boost to Israels tech industry.

Not only that but the Merkava is a better all around tank. The Abrams has fire-control systems and other techno-goodies that were developed by Israel for the Merkava and later sold to the US. Plus while the Abrams is good, the Merkava (as far as I know) is still the only tank in the world that can move full speed and have the turret roatate 360 degrees and fire. BOOYA!

[sabradan]

But I do agree with those who are saying that its just silly to try to figure out which is "better".

[joejd12]

Originally Posted by Topmaul

How many of you have actually driven a tank of any kind? I have. As far as which tank is better who knows it has to do with crews, support, tactics, the whole C3I thing. Could the Merk fight in Alaska or Korea? Which is better in the jungle? See what I mean? When you say which is better you have to define the contest a little more.

i agree with you....

the merkava is the best tank for the idf, and thats about it.... theres a reason we didnt sell any to anyone else (at least i dont htink so), they were designed to serve in israel from the golan to the sinai, and thats pretty much it.... so i doubt they would work very well in alaska....


and i also agree with you about hthe crews of the tanks being very important...

i've heard experts say that one of the biggest reasons our tanks simply demolished egyptian and syrian tanks in 1973 was the difference in crew training and performance...

one of the most extreme examples of this is the story about 2 damaged centurion tanks and their crews stranded in the golan who picked off 60 syrian tanks, and survived....


there were other factors such as a different armor-firepower-mobility ratios, but the crews deffinetly made a difference....

[TeamAmerica]

I would say the M1A2 Abrams is the best MBT in the world all round. That is not to say the Merkava 4 isn't a great design.

[Jericho]

Merkava Mk 1's and II's will be kept for fighting the Arab terrorists in Gaza and in Judea & Samaria. The later Mk III's and the excellent Mk IV's will be kept back incase a war breaks out with Syria. Anyway, as to which tank is tougher, there have been cases in Iraq where an RPG-7 has knocked out an Abrams. It all depends where it hits. And I've seen footage of an Abrams being blown about 20 feet in the air by a daisy chain IED.

Tanks aren't as effective as they once were.

[ralfabco]

All the Western tanks are good. I believe the modern Western tanks, all use the same 120mm smoothbore gun ?


Egypt ?

The Egyptian M-1's, use 105mm guns. Do not forget, that Egypt recently purchased 10,000 depleted uranium rounds, from the USA. The US, must have been worried, about the possible engagement of Egyptian M-1's and Sudanese T-55's. Those DU rounds were needed, to penetrate the armor of the Sudanese T-55's !

Why did Israel, not purchase the M-1 ? Probably the same reason, Israel did not purchase the F-18F. Answer: Logistically, it is expensive to add another key weapons system, to the IDF. People have to be trained, parts have to be stocked, books have to be written, depot maintenance has to be established, and other issues etc... No doubt, the Merkava was designed with the Golan Heights in mind.

It is not just which tank is better. How well trained is the tank crew ? Does the tank crew train often, and use live rounds at times ? Does the company commander, brigade commander, and division commander know what they are doing, in the field ?

[Familyguydude]

I agree with the assessment that it is impossible to determine with tank is better overall as both have different capabilities and specifications suited to their respective fighting force's needs. One thing I was interested in however, is cost production of these two tanks? I think, from what we learned in WWII tank battles, the factor of quantity vs quality is a big factor in tank efficiency. As we all know, the German tanks where of higher quality, yet were expensive and took time to make. The American tank was of less quality, but were able to produce them quickly and make lots of them. What is the cost for an M1 Abrams, compared to that of the Merkava 4? And how long does it take for this tank to go from the factory to the battlefield? It isn't always about which tank is better, but also about how many can you mass produce compared to your budget, and how long would it take you to roll those bad boys out if you were in serious need?

[Sgt. Cav]

Originally Posted by sabradan

Not only that but the Merkava is a better all around tank. The Abrams has fire-control systems and other techno-goodies that were developed by Israel for the Merkava and later sold to the US. Plus while the Abrams is good, the Merkava (as far as I know) is still the only tank in the world that can move full speed and have the turret roatate 360 degrees and fire. BOOYA!

This show that you know nothing about the subject on which you chose to prattle on about, I assure you that the Abraham's M-1 is fully capable of engaging targets at 60+ mph, 96+ km/h, at ranges of 3000+ meters and hitting them with the first round.

I did it many times on the gunnery ranges of Ft. Hood and the Yakima Training Center, Ft Lewis Wa.

They eventually put governors on the Honeywell AGT1500C and limited the speeds to 42 mph (67.7 km/h) but it didn't degrade the accuracy of the gun system one bit.

[Archangel]

Originally Posted by HideNSeek

Abrams is a great tank, but a) its twice as expensive as Merkava b) not great in the Golan, I think an Abrams was tried there, and its track broke off.

You just change the tracks. The US inventory includes different tracks for different environments for the M1 series.

Originally Posted by ¿¿¿

Israel has a better air force

Yes, most modern conflicts end up decided in the skies these days.

Originally Posted by [MakkabI]

Yeh I know but still I think Israel should have some M1 Abrams... to make Israel more stronger!

More stronger? How old are you exactly? *puzzled*

Originally Posted by HideNSeek

Well...first of all, Egypt has a downgraded version of the Abrams. Secondly, the Merkava, Abrams (the American version), Leopard, Leclerc etc, are all excellent MBT's. The Merkava is just developed with the Israeli terrain in mind...unlike the Abrams.

The US pushed Israel to buy it...but Israel turned them down...we'll see what the future holds.

Yes Egypt has a downgraded version. With the Mid East being so volatile, did you really think we'd give them the top of the line product? Nope.

Originally Posted by Topmaul

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

Support nullifies the infra red sig. A tank is nothing without support and support is nothing without the tank.

One support option being the M109A6 Paladin. She's not as state of the art as she could be but she still gets the job done. When you can engage a target so far away with a 155 mm Arty round that you can't even see the target, you don't always have to be state of the art. :)

And that's just one of the many hurt-locker tools to support Abrams movement on the battlefield.

Originally Posted by arham

the M1A2 is not invincible anymore.iraq is a prime example.the type-99 tanks which the chinese r exporting to north-african countries r nowbetter than the M1A2 in every sense

No tank is completely invincible. They all need help to do their jobs or they're all eventually burning tin cans.

[Sgt. Cav]

Originally Posted by BrittleSteel

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.

So can the M-1.

[Sgt. Cav]

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"

Same in the U.S Cav.

[Sgt. Cav]

Originally Posted by 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!

Then you have never been on maneuvers, or been in combat, just what do you think the terrain of Iraq consist of, a whole lot of desert, wadie, and rough country.

The M-1 can chew it's way across any terrain, it has to, for the U.S. to maintain it's global strategic commitments.

If there was ever a fight between a Merk, and a Abrams, the winner would most likely be the first one to put steel on target, which comes down to training.

AFAIK, there has never been a breach of the fighting compartment of a M-1 Abrhams, and any crew losses have come from exposed crew members, outside the vehicle.

[Sgt. Cav]

Originally Posted by arham

the M1A2 is not invincible anymore.iraq is a prime example.the type-99 tanks which the chinese r exporting to north-african countries r nowbetter than the M1A2 in every sense

and just how do you come to that conclusion?

A Chinese Type 99 is better than a M-1-A2? or the M1A3 Abrams which is now coming on line.

The Type 99, still uses the 125mm/w auto loading system, with two peace ammunition, which has a long cycle time, and is not capable of penetration of the M-1's armor.

No my friend, the 99 is still a derivative of Soviet design doctrine, with all it's failings.

[BrittleSteel]

Originally Posted by Archangel

You just change the tracks. The US inventory includes different tracks for different environments for the M1 series.

Sorry but this statement I completely disagree with. For tanks, especially in the middle of combat, you cannot just "change tracks" like changing a tire on a small BMW. If a track breaks the tank is stuck and faces a large number of dangerous obstacles. Just to name two:

1) The tank may have been immobilized in an exposed position making it a huge juicy target that will be hit shortly and/or an extremely dangerous task for the crew that has to stand outside the tank exposed while trying to get the track fixed.

2) Fixing a track can be a matter of minutes or hours depending on factors like training, how bad break is, and what kind of terrain you are sitting on - which can be disastrous if in the middle of an intense battle. I don't even want to tell you how much bad it can be if a tank rolls completely off a track.

[HideNSeek]

Oh, not again with this silly "vs" posts. It's been said before, Merkava is the best tank for Israel, it may not be the best tank for the US or anyone else. It's been designed with Israeli needs in mind, not anyone else's. The Abrams was tested in Israel, it didn't go over too well, especially in the Golan (wasn't able to transverse that terrain, it's not only the tracks, more complicated than that). Abrams is a fine tank, just like the Leopard, Challenger, and basically all modern tanks, but it wasn't built for the complicated terrain, and general situation Israel finds itself in. The Merkava was created by Israel Tal, a man who knows tank warfare, and Israeli tank warfare to be more specific.

As a side-note, I wouldn't hold my breath for anything designated as the "M1A3" in the near future (next few years).

[dannytoro]

.....I'm not sure which tank I'd pick between the two tanks. I do know if I was starting from scratch I'd probably try to import South Korean K2's....Especially if a lot of hills and mountains were involved.......