Wanna simulate Merkava?

[Bennewitz]

`J. Collins` (well known at tank-net.org) estimates the following protection-values:



Merkava Mk3

KE:
Turret: 790-820
Glacis: 760
Lower front hull: 670

HEAT:
Turret: 1530-1650
Glacis: 1380
Lower front hull: 1130


Merkava Mk2

KE:
Turret front:510-530
Glacis:470
Lower front hull: 390

HEAT:
Turret front: 1410-1520
Glacis:960
Lower front hull: 880


Merkava Mk1

KE:
Turret front: 360-370
Glacis: 440
Lower front hull: 360

HEAT:
Turret front: 990-1090
Glacis: 900-960
Lower front hull: 600-640

http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm#4

( Of course he has no Information for the brand-new Merkava MK4 or lets say, israeli ammunition)

As you can see the estimates do not include other sides than front, and not including the engine-Block beneath the glacis (...and a Mercava can still fight back if a frontal penetration stops in the engine-block!)
Please Ssnake, tell us these estimates (you surely already know about...) are enough to get these interesting tanks into the game!
In order to get the missing values, one could still take the average distribution of armour of a tank and try to apply it on a Merkava-Model (even with its complicated angeled surfaces).

Just imagine what one could do with this all new vehicle-concept:

Lets say, your Merkava must turn around a corner (or let`s say cross a mountain ridge) where you suspect the enemy will be waiting for you. Well, you can just let the grunts (you gave a hitch to) check out the situation on the other side beforehand. Grunts are a better way of finding out about The enemy`s positions if you suspect an ambush, the enemy possibly won`t even notice you`re spying on him.
There are better examples...

[dejawolf]

yeah, there's hundreds of armoured vehicles we'd like to see in SB2. many won't make it though.

trying to be everything is not a good development goal for a low-budget title.

[Pakenko]

I would be really quite happy with one steerable soviet tank added to the Leo and M1!

[Lone*star49]

...

:arrow: Same old wish here.. M12A and those "stable sights" for SB2..

"never stop trying" .. lol

LS :helmet:

[gtrof]

The only other country tank I would wish to have would be a Challenger besides the ones already planed for SB2. It would allow a few BOAR missions for SB2

[Ssnake]

Armor values alone, no matter how accurate, and what's publicly available material simply doesn't allow the inclusion of a Merkava with the degree of fidelity that we want to achieve with Steel Beasts. It doesn't matter that I personally consider the Merk as one of the coolest machines of its kind, and would like to see it more in SB than any other vehicle. It's not gonna happen until the Merkava interior and fire control system is declassified, and I don't see this happen for the next 30 years.

[Bluewings]

Ssnake , In case (I say "in case") you would like to include Leclerc in SB , what do you need to know about the Tank ?

make a list . Don 't be shy . I mean a "LIST" , which can include Photos and recorded sounds .

And E-Mail it to me .

Cheers . :3starsk2:

[dejawolf]

the first thing to do, is to finish off what is still on the list to be done. then we'd be able to concentrate on other AFV's

[Bennewitz]

I`d even be most happy with Merkava MK.1 in SB 3 and it`s a pity our infiltrators with cover-names `Javehn` and `Nepi` cannot supply the missing data (or General Tal`s old and yellow rotten Mk1-blueprints).


About Leclerc:

If I remember correctly, Ssnake once said that material on Leclerc is easyer to get than data on Challenger 1, leave alone Merkava. With my expertise as a german civilist that never rode a tank, I have to say that the leclerc is a more recent and clever tank-design, which is exeptionally compact (edit for dejawolf: read `short`) and a little lighter compared to other last-generation western designs.

- The Leclerc has Hull-storage lacking Blowout-panels just like the Leo, so if there is a penetration:...

- His `hydro-pneumatic` suspension will not be noticeable in the game, because it provides for no more than a smoother ride .

[JAVEHN]

:shock:
Naah , don't look at me , i can't tell you . We do have an air condition in merkava 3 , i hope it helps .... :wink:
It would be great thow to see Merkava in Steelbeasts , and to kick ass with all of M1 and Leos , and T80's and ..
Oh , i think i said to much . :roll:

[RENEGADE-623]

will we have the merkava in steel beasts 30???

[dejawolf]

probably before SB10

btw, the leclerc is 2.53m to the turret roof, while the abrams is only 2.43m...
and generally is the same in shape, and size to the abrams.
the leclerc has hull stored ammunition.

[Hector]

Na, this is worrysome, US and Germany aren't afraid their machines are modelled, which is very good for us virtual gamers, but, how much is it a real danger for them to have it unveiled somehow so publicly as now? I find very difficult for the bad guys, as history has showed so far, that they get real good tanks like the Steel Beats and the Merk. Israel is charachterized by a high level of secrecy in all thing related to its army which has proven also good for them, smart guys. It would be interesiting to learn more about this 2 different policies.

[Hector]

Ssnake , In case (I say "in case") you would like to include Leclerc in SB , what do you need to know about the Tank ?

make a list . Don 't be shy . I mean a "LIST" , which can include Photos and recorded sounds .

And E-Mail it to me .


wow, atta boy, that is the kinda attitude SB2 and esim need!!!

[NEpi]

It's not gonna happen until the Merkava interior and fire control system is declassified, and I don't see this happen for the next 30 years.

in the next 80 years, you mean :cry:
seriously, i don't think the IDF will let info about it's now-decommisioned Sho't tank (massively-upgraded Centurions), not to mention the predecesor of the Sho't (the Merkava. it's fine to say that :))

i could give you outside pictures (it's ok, the Hizbulla took many of those), but the inside is another thing...

also, who told you the FCS is the same? maybe it isn't?

if you want to know something, ask away. i just might not answer :)

[Pakenko]

Damn, I would love a Merkava as well, but let us stay realistic. T-72 or 80 (BV would be quite good enough) and a Challie would make me really quite happy to model the most important machines of the 80ies.

[Bluewings]

>> " His `hydro-pneumatic` suspension will not be noticeable in the game, because it provides for no more than a smoother ride " <<

I have to disagree .

You not only get a smoother ride , it makes the Leclerc a very pleasant platform to work in , but the most important is the ability to fire on the move at a much faster speed with a much greater accuracy than with any other Tanks . 8)

I can provide data about it .

Cheers . :3starsk2:

[Ssnake]

Well, my guess would be that there are less occasions when there is no coincidence (alignment of gun to LOS, so to speak - in the sense of "gun" being the ideal firing angle of tangent to the gun's rotational axis at the muzzle, and "LOS" being the line of observation to the target, plus the angle to compensate parallax between the gun and the (primary) sight). The Leo simply blocks the trigger if the deviation between actual gun position and ideal gun position is more then .2mil which is sufficient for all relevant engagement distances. With a softer ride it might be possible to reduce this allowed deviation to .1 or .15 mil and still get acceptable delays for firing the gun, hence allowing longer engagement ranges - IF the ammunition's natural spread is small enough to allow an increase of the engagement area. And provided that the actual propellant temperature is known with precision, and updated for every round. And that the muzzle reference is being checked and updated before every shot. And that crosswind and air temperature are contstantly monitored and updated.

IF all that is the case, then yes, a better suspension system may offer better accuracy for fire on the move over long ranges. In and by itself however it doesn't help much. You need to reduce the error margin for all relevant factors in the ballistic calculation, and propellant temperature is potentially a substantial source of error.

[Bluewings]

Ssnake !! LOL :lol:

Accurate and probably true .
nevertheless you push the "No-No Lecler is not better" a bit too far .

" The gun of the Leclerc tank has a length higher of one meter than the guns of 120 mm RH 120 German of the tank Léopard 2 and the 120 mm M 256 American who arms the tank M1 Abrams. These two guns do not have that a length of 44 gauges either 5,28 Mr. the gun of 120 mm of Leclerc has a length of 52 gauges or 6,24 Mr. What enables him to treat its targets with the usual distance of 4000 m against 3000 m for RH 120 and M 256. Considerable superiority in the anti-tank combat where it is that which draws further which is right very often. Of course, this comparison between the French gun and those which equip the tanks with friendly countries and allies cannot take all its importance that within the commercial framework, in the form of the export sales and not in that of a direct confrontation.

In the current state, Leclerc would have more to face tanks of the type T72 or T80 both armed with the gun of 125 mm, whose ballistic qualities are manifestly lower than the guns of 120 mm RH 120 and M 256. In addition, to face a possible threat by 2020-2030, a gun of 140 mm, twice more powerful than the 120 mm of 52 gauges, is currently under studies for the forces of Atlantic Alliance. It could be assembled on the Leclerc tanks as of the year 2010.

In addition to its frightening gun of 120 mm, Leclerc has the property to draw moving in any ground at the speed of 40 Km/h on a target located at 4000 m and it even moving to 60 Km/h. To judge this performance, let us announce that the tanks Léopard 2 and M1 Abrams can only draw works from there (15 Km/h maximum) on a good track and against a target with the stop located at 3000 Mr. the absence of automatic charger oblige them to stop to manually reload the door and cumbersome ammunition of 120 mm.

Leclerc is proposed with export not like tank but like system. The Plain Arab Emirates which ordered 436 tanks Leclerc turret and breakdown service (all will be delivered at the end of 2002) have it in fact chosen as a traditional system of dissuasion against any aggression. It is estimated, indeed, that for hoping to put in failure 400 Leclerc tanks, it would be necessary to oppose a force to them minimum of 2400 tanks of the type T72 or 1200 Léopards/M1 Abrams. No country of this so significant area of the Middle-East has such a park of tanks. "

AND NOW : Do you wanna a ride ?

Here is 8 Megs of speeding steel :shock:
Fasten your seatbelts :!: :twisted:

:arrow: : http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/files/Leclers.mpeg

May I draw your attention to the perfect stability of the gun despite the sheer speed of the tank ? :D 8)

Cheers . :3starsk2:

[dejawolf]

the leclerc has an L52 gun?
nice, but guess what, the leopard 2a6 and 2a6EX has a L55 gun.

yes the leclerc is an interesting tank.
but as stated before, so is about 100 other AFV's out there.

[Paul_L]

It's not gonna happen until the Merkava interior and fire control system is declassified, and I don't see this happen for the next 30 years.

in the next 80 years, you mean :cry:
seriously, i don't think the IDF will let info about it's now-decommisioned Sho't tank (massively-upgraded Centurions), not to mention the predecesor of the Sho't (the Merkava. it's fine to say that :))

i could give you outside pictures (it's ok, the Hizbulla took many of those), but the inside is another thing...

also, who told you the FCS is the same? maybe it isn't?

if you want to know something, ask away. i just might not answer :)

The very last thing we want around here is people divulging secret information.We do the best we can with the public sourced info we can get our hands on.

[Ssnake]

The statement that you'd need 1200 Leo 2 or M1s to defeat 400 defending Leclercs actually means that they're on par. At operational level you'd calculate a ratio of 3 attackers on one defender anyway.
The stability of a gun platform cannot be judged from external observation. You'd need to compare a high frequency samplig log of phases of alignment between gun and sights from both tanks driving the same course and moving the sights identically to find out whether there's more time of alignment with the Leclerc than with the Leo, and then you need to find out whether that More actually translates into a situation where it actually gives the Leclerc an edge. Given that the Leclerc is 15 years younger than M1 and Leo 2 it should come at no surprise that there are some improvements somewhere - anything else would put the French engineers to shame. But I can't see the dramatic difference in performance and combat value that you try to construct here.

[dejawolf]

i can see 2 things that really distinguish the leclerc from other western tanks,
the .50 cal coax, and the autoloader.

the .50 seems like a quite good idea. you can engage light targets, and troops at ranges up to 2500 effectively, without wasting main gun ammunition.
long range sniping with the coax... :shock:

[TaNkB0y]

SWEET!
A lession learned from the Israelis I see.

But does anyone know how many ready rounds it has for that big coax? I can see being able to pick off individual targets with a tight zero (or boresight?), but one of the functions of the coax MG is area suppression. You can't do that for long if you've traded lots of little bullets for fewer big ones...

James

[chrisotto]

And how often do you need to change barrels in the cal .50 ? Especially in the tight confines of a MBT turret...

[9erRed]

Greetings,

Ref the 50cal as the coax. It's not a new idea, most if not all allied tanks used the 50 as the coax or top turret gun from about the mid 40's till most were replaced by newer and more reliable wpns. The Canadians had them mounted on the M4's and Centurians later. And only a few years ago replaced the whole inventory of them with the FN C6.

Biggest problem with them was jamming as the wpn heated up, and the head spacing changed. Also feed problems, so having this wpn mounted beside the main was a problem for the loader to carry out the stoppage actions.

Yes agree it was just the right size to engage soft skin to lightly armed vehicles and deny the enemy use of that vehicle or platform. Lets not do the 50cal and infantry engagement descusion here, surfice to say it was quite adapt at removing the infantry action problem. And the 50cal ammo was readly avail. for all allied and later Nato users as it was also used by all branchs of the military. (Navy and Air Force)

All for now ..... 9erRed

[TaNkB0y]

Changing the barrel, IF its a classic M2 .50 would be pretty easy. You could even do it from outside, just push the barrel out of battery and turn...
There is a big difference between mounting an .50 flex on top of the turret and slaving one to the precision fire control the tank's main gun.
Very few if any tanks mounted .50 coax MGs until the Israelis mounted them on the searchlight mounts of their M-48s & M-60s. The story I heard was that they did it as a low cost way of shooting gunnery without having to burn big bullets. They found it very effective and so took them to Lebanon with them.

[chrisotto]

Yeah, I know how to change the barrel of the M2 HB, I call it MG 63. My point is: Changing the barrel from outside means climbing out in a fire-fight... smart stuff... or changing a barrel from the inside means moving a white-hot piece of metal in a teeny-weeny turret...

And you need to change a barrel soon, too... Usually after 3 boxes of 100 rounds each. If not, your great fire-control system with pin-point coax .50cal fire is for rat (not you attackrat) because your barrel is offset due to heat by 2-3 mm...

[TaNkB0y]

Yeah that kinda emphasises my point that having a .50 as the sole coax MG might have some cool points (great range, accurate, and neato factor) but has the draw back of not having a very good sustained rate of fire.

Maybe the French don't intend on having to fight off hordes of Infantry ever again? :P

[Ssnake]

Suppression doesn't necessarily requite a high rate of ammunition if you can aim precisely, and at long range, so that everybody on the receiving end is convinced that it's not a good idea to stick out one's head. That's suppression - discouraging the enemy from taking some action.

[TaNkB0y]

Yes but by definition "supprisive fire" isn't aimed at a specific target, rather at a area. Were I a dismount, I would be alot less inclined to stay down if a tank was lobbing a few HMG rounds in my general direction vs. fairly continous bursts of 7.62 which has a much greater probablility of actually hitting me and ruining my afternoon.
But
As I think about it, when viewed in light of the combined arms environment this tank would be operating in, its not even really a weakness. Your accompaning IFVs and dismount teams with their light autocannon and MGs could handle laying down anti-personel fires, while your tank does the heavy work and maybe picks off the odd halpless dismount who kept his head up to long.
eh?

[NEpi]

the absence of automatic charger oblige them to stop to manually reload the door and cumbersome ammunition of 120 mm.


BW, that's just not true. i've managed to load 120mm rounds while driving on the worst terrain in the world: THE GOLAN HEIGHTS. you ain't a loader till you've done that feat :)
loading while being jerked in the turret is more than possible - it's fun! :D

now about that mpeg you've attached, that's not rough terrain at all, and shouldn't be used for comparison of other tanks.

[Bluewings]

NEpi , there is NO WAY for you to load fast enough to fire 8 times/minute on the Golan heights while on the move .

Leclerc can . 8)

The mpeg is about speed in mud , rocks and gravel .

Cheers . :3starsk2:

[TaNkB0y]

7.5 seconds between shots? Thats an average load time for an M1 loader. Good is 4 seconds flat. <toot toot>
And something too keep in mind, no matter how good the suspension, the gunner isn't going to be hitting anything while he's bouncing up and down and banging his eyeballs into the sight.
And there are quite a few old Russian tankers who could tell you all about that dreaded "clunk!" of an autoloader malfunction.

"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've created. Its destructive power pales in comparison to Private Murphy and his buddies."
:hallucine:

[dejawolf]

well, there's a distinct difference between 1995 french autoloaders and 1970 russian autoloaders..
well, at least the russians has a handcrank backup on the casette autoloader :P

[Bluewings]

TaNkB0y : " 7.5 seconds between shots? Thats an average load time for an M1 loader. Good is 4 seconds flat. <toot toot> " .

Try that for 20 minutes while doing 50km/h country side .
You'll be tired , or injured or dead .

Leclerc can .

" And something too keep in mind, no matter how good the suspension, the gunner isn't going to be hitting anything while he's bouncing up and down and banging his eyeballs into the sight. "

This is exactly what happen in a M1 .

NOT in the Leclerc .

You see , many Countries are running tests when they want to buy a new park of tanks .
Everytime , 5 Tanks comes to tests for sale : T90( #version) , T80(#version) , Leo(#version) , M1/2(#version) , Leclerc (#version) .

Leclerc and Leo ALWAYS come first .

What I want to point out is the Leclerc is the only Tank in service today to have a true "fire on the move" capability because of :
1) Its optical and firing control system .
2) Greater range and accuracy with its L52 Gun (L55 even better!)
3) Autoloader .
4) Its Hydropneumatic suspension .

To hit 6 different targets under 45 seconds while doing 45 km/h through country side was unknown before .

And it's where lies its strenght . Leclerc is very hard to engage because he's always on the move (and fast) while able to maintain a very high first hit/kill .

Leo 3 will be a strong contender , mind ....

Cheers . :3starsk2:

[TaNkB0y]

Ok, if you want to think so...

Are we in FFZ territory yet?
:D

[Sean]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TaNkB0y : " 7.5 seconds between shots? Thats an average load time for an M1 loader. Good is 4 seconds flat. <toot toot> " .

Try that for 20 minutes while doing 50km/h country side .
You'll be tired , or injured or dead .

Leclerc can .

>> At a rate of 4 rounds per minute (every 15 secs), 34 rounds will be away after 8.5 minutes. In that case I would say being tired would not be a problem.


The autoloader argument will never be decided. There will be people on both sides of the argument. :-)

Time to come clean- how much stock do you own in the french defense company that is producing the Leclerc? ;-)

[Bluewings]

The French Defense Company who produces the Leclerc is Giat Industries .

http://www.giat-industries.fr/us_index.asp

I have no share in it , but they have all my hope and support . :P :wink:

Cheers . :3starsk2:

[TaNkB0y]

They are going to need it. The French gov can't even give them away to the Saudis...

[chrisotto]

I have no share in it , but they have all my hope and support

No suprise... Few Defense companies are publicly held, for reasons of national interest, less visibility, less reporting duties... The US ones are better, as they require more public capital (i.e. institutional investors to finance their operations, via the primary & secondary markets and taking larger risks - i.e. project competitions) and are required to follow SEC reporting regulations (as well as using US GAAP). European defense companies tend to be held by their country, financed through public funds (or at least holding statuary guarantees) - one further reason why I believe Steel Beasts does not get the attention it deserves in Europe - to many interests get hurt if you use a cheaper software...

[Bluewings]

Tankboy , I do not know what you are talking about ? :roll:

Cheers . :3starsk2:

[Ratseal]

the number of MBTs being produced annually has steadily declined. Reason? Very expensive cost per unit. The US is gambling that it won't need a better tank than the M1A2 SEP until 2020ish - after which the FCV family should be in production. Note - the FCV MBT is not the Stryker. In the meantime, the US plan is to 'own' the battlefield airspace. It really doesn't matter how great your tank is if you don't control your airspace.

I think one of the reasons that some countries are investing in armor (France) or are buying new tanks (Turkey) is recognition that they will fight under contested airspace - where as the US is confident that it will control the airspace.

For some countries which are closer to the likely locations of conflict, the logistics issues regarding tank size are easier - but France will have the same problems the US has re: moving 70ton vehicles to the front very rapidly - and French airlift and sealift is in the same or worse shape than the US.

I would like to see the LeClerc go up against the tank from Hammer's Slammers - it would be an even match with that autoloader! :P

[ShotMagnet]

would like to see the LeClerc go up against the tank from Hammer's Slammers

See, now that's what this forum needs. There are discussions aplenty about which tank is better than what, and which tank is the best, etc, but no one has done the only comparison that matters. How would a modern MBT fare against an SF vehicle? :)
Rat, think big, how would a Slammer tank fare against an Ogre? My guess is that the Ogre would win because of its stand-off capabilities. :D :lol: :D

Shot

[Sean]

The US ones are better, as they require more public capital (i.e. institutional investors to finance their operations, via the primary & secondary markets and taking larger risks - i.e. project competitions) and are required to follow SEC reporting regulations (as well as using US GAAP).
US GAAP seems to be very porus to me, where can I read up on EU reporting regulations to compare?

[chrisotto]

http://www.iasc.org.uk/cmt/0001.asp

on IAS...

http://www.fer.ch/

SWISS GAAP (FER)


http://www.kpmg.co.uk/pubs/ias_comp_frusgaap.pdf

KPMG has a nice bit of different accounting standards on the web - just check for their free publications.