Abrams Side Armor

[Red6]

M1 does not use alluminium as armor, only some components to save weight. In case of M2, currently we know that decision to use alluminium and make vehicle such light initially (25 metric tons) was a mistake. M2 should be slightly longer, and made from steel. Amphibious capability was not nececary.

Israelis are replacing M113 with heavy Merkava based Namer. per Israeli requirements, M113 is obsolete, does not meet protection requirements.

This is why US Army will replace M113 with AMPV which will be a tracked variant of Stryker, or new variant of M2.

As for commonality, fuel efficency, self diagnostics, everythign that I can do with other platforms.

I imagine and I see... a death trap to it's crews?

I don't believe, I know.

No it is not. Front mounted engine was choosen by Israel Tal as a mean to create simple spaced armor. This is because Merkava was allways a very primitive tank when it comes to protection technology. When Merkava Mk1 was fielded it had more primitive and worse protection than T-72's sold by WarPac and Soviet Union to Arab countries. Israelis started to work on modern protection for Merkava in late 1980's to early 1990's. But due to overall tank design, it was possible to place composite armor only on turret. Front hull have weaker protection than any other today used tank.

M1 and Leopard 2 is a better tanks than Merkava.

Analize designs, I don't see anything great about Merkava, even Soviets many times analized it's design, conclusions were allways the same, front mounted engine creates huge weak protection zone, and creates inefficent design.

Ah Wikipedia. I don't if I should laugh or... well.:heu:

I can't find something that does not exist. This is one of the bascis of logical thinking. And yes, you are definetely not expert.

There were no advanced RPG's, there were no "Kornet" ATGM's in Iraq in 2003. PG-7VR granades and RPG-29V with PG-29V granades appeared much later.

And yes I know the story of that M1, some naive people believed it was a railgun. A typical opinion of people that do not have any knowledge on vehicles armor protection or armor piercing ammunitions.

It was a simple RPG that hit where armor is thinner.

First thing, there are no best armored vehicles. There are no super tanks or super lightweight vehicles that can do everything. There is nothing ideal.

MGV platform designed within FCS would not be as it was advertized.

It's armor protection was weak. Active protection systems are not perfect either and are not capable to intercept all threats. There is no such thing as absolute situational awareness to avoid contact with enemy.

Not to mention that MGV platform had over serious flaws in it's design, which would make it less safe for crews (why it surprises me, afterall it was BAE design!) and also would increase platforms costs and complexcity due to idiotic fashion for modularity. Germans have the same problem with MRAV Boxer, it was also designed as modular, with replaceable mission modules. But when poduction started it become obvious that vehicle builded in one configuration, stays in that configuration for it's whole service life. So why mission modules and modularity that made vehicle more expensive and complex, decreasing maintainability.

These are problems completely unknown to politicians and fans of FCS like programs.

The Merkava is from its stock design better consistently armored on the underbelly (not just a certain region), has a slight V-shape, and is easier to repair (drive train) once damaged from a mine or IED. Yes, it was designed to deal with those threats more so than Leo or M1 which were designed for a different type of fight and are today receiving upgrades to their underbelly as an afterthought. The Israeli's are among the leaders in armor design, ERA and ADS development. Collaboration between the US and Israel is extensive, and much of the US systems (our first ERA) was basically their stuff. Much of US ERA today is Rafael.

It's truly hard to fall below the poor design of the T-72, a tank that loves to blow its top and has fuel exposed on the rear upper hull, or where the crew has to immediately get out in a real fire... It's almost as if that tank was designed to kill the crew. Maybe the chief engineer hated the Soviet Union, maybe he was drunk, I don't know, but even an M60A3 is a more survivable tank, without exaggeration. A large part of survivability is what happens if the tank is penetrated, i.e. spalling, fire potential/suppression, compartmentalization of crew and geometry, secondary explosions, or ability of crew to remain in the tank for some time even when the vehicle is afire, ability of crew to get out, systems still operating for some time and the tank being able to fight even as engine is knocked out, burning etc. (shooting back at the bad guys is the best defense)... One of the real pluses of an M1 isn't that he can stop everything (he can't), but it's now well he handles when he is penetrated or set afire. That doesn't mean he won't also end up a black sunken half molten heap, but at least in 90% of the cases the crew made it. Much of the success of the US Army in Iraq was from crews that knew what they were doing, i.e. training, experience, good solid tactics and procedures, willingness to fight... Had you given them an old M60A3, they would have brought nearly the same results.

Most ADS systems and ERA have limitations and things to consider if using them. Surprisingly, this isn't only true for the Israeli's and something I attempted to explain earlier. Ironically, Israel has one of the better ADS systems currently fielded (really operational and in any meaningful numbers) and they are among the leaders in ERA development.

No one with any clue ever considered it to be anything other than an RPG, but it was evident that newer and more effective warheads were in the game even with a rudimentary analysis of the impact holes. Advanced RPGs were in Iraq from day one, with vehicles being hit by them already in 2003, in fact even TOW was likely to be in Iraq (they had them from Kuwait when they overran them in the earlier war). http://www.mashpedia.com/videoplayer.php?q=x2TLS1sqMl8〈= (Was he taking a dump?)

The bad guys know a few things too, they have a say in the matter, there are all sorts of nasties out there today, and in an urban or mountainous fight, it's 3 dimensional. The reality is that the MBT was parked for much of the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, or in other engagements because it was mismatched for the mission. The real work trucks in the last years have been the HMMWV, Stryker, and purpose built mine and small arms protective vehicles, not the M1. They had some limited usefulness, and in some areas where because that's all we had to make it work, but it was a far from ideal scenario.

A front engine design is another sacrificial armor concept. It works. A big diesel, radiator, etc. will add to the protection of the crew and there were several cases where the engine in a M2 saved a driver. The real issue with a front engine is the heat produced. It's wrong for a tank that you want to use in a tank on tank battle where you're moving a lot (thermal signature and it throws off optics). Again, the Merkava is a pure defensive tank.

[Damian90]

The Merkava is from its stock design better consistently armored on the underbelly (not just a certain region), has a slight V-shape, and is easier to repair (drive train) once damaged from a mine or IED. Yes, it was designed to deal with those threats more so than Leo or M1 which were designed for a different type of fight and are today receiving upgrades to their underbelly as an afterthought. The Israeli's are among the leaders in armor design, ERA and ADS development. Collaboration between the US and Israel is extensive, and much of the US systems (our first ERA) was basically their stuff. Much of US ERA today is Rafael.

Merkava was not designed to deal with IED's, it was also never designed for urban warfare. This is completely idiotic myth widespread by pseudo experts like these talking silly things on Discovery Channel.

Merkava from the begginign was designed for defensive armored warfare, just like M1 and Leo2.

This is a fact, however Israelis did not have special armor technology at the time when Merkava was designed, so they decided to use simple, purely steel spaced armor. For turret it was easy task to get there enough frontal protection with spaced array. Hull was a bit more tricky, thus Israel Tal decided to place powerpack up front. It was a good decision back then. But a fatal mistake was to keep this design scheme when special armor was avaiable to Israel. In fact Merkava Mk3 had special armor only on turret, hull front was weakly protected. Merkava Mk4 have slightly better front hull protection, but still inferior to any other modern tank.

Also what people don't know, is that Merkava belly armor was also not designed to defeat IED's, it was designed only for slightly better protection against mines. To achieve relatively good protection against IED's, Merkava also needs additional belly armor just like M1, Leopard 2 or any other tank.

Another myth is that Israelis were first to develop ERA, no it is not truth. First ERA was developed in Soviet Union after WWII. However it took years before design could had been refined, first ERA kits had just too much explosive and were not practical.

However first composite armor was codeveloped in UK and USA during WWII in form of first modular armor codenamed HCR2 for M4 medium tank, it was crude and primitive armor design, but it worked.

So Israelis were never leaders.

Also first active protection systems were developed in Soviet Union, these were systems like Dhozd and Drozd-1, not including some experimental work. Drozd-1 had been used during Soviet invasion in Afghanistan in small numbers.

So again, Israelis were not even leaders in active protection systems development.

It's truly hard to fall below the poor design of the T-72, a tank that loves to blow its top and has fuel exposed on the rear upper hull, or where the crew has to immediately get out in a real fire... It's almost as if that tank was designed to kill the crew. Maybe the chief engineer hated the Soviet Union, maybe he was drunk, I don't know, but even an M60A3 is a more survivable tank, without exaggeration.

T-72 is still better protected than Merkava Mk1 and Mk2 in terms of pure armor protection. When early Merkava models used primitive spaced steel armor, T-72 used more advanced composite armor.

As for T-72 design, in reality it should never be created, and it is not that engineers hated Soviet Union or were drunk (another myth).

The original order of Ministry of Defence of the Soviet Union, was for UKBTM design bureau to design a T-64 variant with V-45/V-46 diesel engine insteald 5TDF diesel engine.

Initially UKBTM engineers did so, and created Object 172. However creating their own tank design meant that they would won state prizes and had privilages. So they stole in fact KB-60M design bureau turret and hull design from T-64, and redesigned it by replacing original suspension with their design of upgraded T-62 suspension, original 6ETs mechanical loader with AZ-125 electric autoloader, and engine 5TDF with V-46, this is how Object 172M was created that finally lead to the original T-72 "Ural".

And M60A3 is not more survivable per se. It have just smaller probability of having ammunition cook off because M68 gun uses ammunition with metal propelant charge cases, 125mm 2A46 gun used in T-72 series, uses ammunition with combustible propelant charge cases that are more vurnable. If M60A3 would use similiar cases, it would be even more vurnable due to it's size and how ammunition is stored inside.

Most ADS systems and ERA have limitations and things to consider if using them. Surprisingly, this isn't only true for the Israeli's and something I attempted to explain earlier. Ironically, Israel has one of the better ADS systems currently fielded (really operational and in any meaningful numbers) and they are among the leaders in ERA development.

Israelis Trophy active protection system is very simple in operation, and there is nothing special in it.

As for ERA development, Israeli ERA is considered as... primitive, non universal designs. Israeli ERA can stop only HEAT and EFP warheads.

Russian and Ukrainian ERA is of universal design, capable to defeat HEAT, EFP but also APFSDS types of threats.

So no, Israelis are neither leaders, neither they have any type of advanced ERA.

A front engine design is another sacrificial armor concept. It works. A big diesel, radiator, etc. will add to the protection of the crew and there were several cases where the engine in a M2 saved a driver. The real issue with a front engine is the heat produced. It's wrong for a tank that you want to use in a tank on tank battle where you're moving a lot (thermal signature and it throws off optics). Again, the Merkava is a pure defensive tank.

Powerpack might add some protection against small calliber weapons or obsolete ammunition. But powerpack does not have enough hardness or density to efficently defeat modern ammunition, so in the end it is reducing protection of a tank like vehicle against modern ammunition.

And yes, Merkava is a defensive tank, designed to fight in open battles from behind obstacles or prepared defensive positions.

[lavictoireestlavie]

.....

And yes, Merkava is a defensive tank, designed to fight in open battles from behind obstacles or prepared defensive positions.

I am getting the impression that Challenger 2 is the closest analog to a Merkava 3 and 4 when it comes to survivability and doctrinal use. Good turret protection but medicore front hull protection forcing the tank fight from prepared defensive positions.

The Merkava 3 and 4s large lower glacis just seems to be made out of two relatively thin armor steel plates spaced apart. Is there a fuel tank between them? It should be able to defeat mid line HEAT-like rounds such as an RPG7-7V but it is hopelessly outmatched by and post 1980s APFSDS (round or semi-heavy, heavy ATGM (AT-3 and up) it seems. Am I right or wrong in my observation?

[Damian90]

The Merkava 3 and 4s large lower glacis just seems to be made out of two relatively thin armor steel plates spaced apart. Is there a fuel tank between them? It should be able to defeat mid line HEAT-like rounds such as an RPG7-7V but it is hopelessly outmatched by and post 1980s APFSDS (round or semi-heavy, heavy ATGM (AT-3 and up) it seems. Am I right or wrong in my observation?

Correct. However there is bigger problem with Merkava. Because of very large internal volume, that is unnececary really, vehicle is very heavy compared to it's protection level that does not exceed that of other MBT's that are more compact and lighter.

Funny thing tough, but as far as I remember, general Israel Tal asked what he would change in Merkava design, was also connected to vehicles unnececary heavy weight. So general Tal concluded that he would very likely replace the current bulky and heavy suspension system, with lighter and more compact hydrogas suspension system.

[lavictoireestlavie]

Here is another pic:

[Hedgehog]

Here is another pic:

I can see the Israeli's have adopted what would be my approach to the frontal hull protection.

Why put heavy armour to protect what is essentially a sacrificial part? (The Engine)

You only need enough armour to keep out 40mm auto-cannon rounds.

Put the heavy stuff on firewall/bulkhead where any APFSDS hit is likely to be disturbed but passing through a bloody great engine block, using this method would probably have the following effect.

1. Near enough 90 degree armour angle = bad.

2. Projectile Disruption by Engine components = good.

Then you have a choice:

3a. Reduce Bulkhead Armour thickness to compensate for engine bay disruption and save weight.

3b. Increase Bulkhead Armour thickness to account for 90 degree angle increase in weight maybe increase crew protection.

Or you could increase the length of the tank and allow for a sloped bulkhead, but that may create an unacceptably large vehicle, in which case you may as well put the engine at the back.

Swings and roundabouts.

[Damian90]

What is a guarantee that engine block will stop APFSDS projectile capable to penetrate for example 650mm RHA that have much greater hardness and density than this engine block?

I don't take a chances with engine, armor is better.

[Hedgehog]

What is a guarantee that engine block will stop APFSDS projectile capable to penetrate for example 650mm RHA that have much greater hardness and density than this engine block?

I don't take a chances with engine, armor is better.

None.

The idea is that the engine also doubles as spaced armour, making its weight deficit more efficient.

Against a Chemical Energy attack (HE, HEAT, HESH) having the engine there is a very big positive point.

Look at IFV and APCs, why do you think the engine is in the front?

When the Merkava was initially developed, CE rounds were the premier tank killer round.

Coming back to KE rounds:

Also the hope is that the round is possibly deflected on its way through the engine and energy is removed from the penetrator as it passes through the engine.

(Takes a fair amount of energy to vaporize cast steel/iron)

So that when it hits the bulkhead/main armour it is not striking with full efficiency.

You need to remember long rod penetrators are designed to hit point first.

Deflecting the rod penetrator projectile off course so it strikes sideways on, spreads the energy over a far bigger area than if it hit point first, and this is a serious degradation of performance.

(It would rip through an M113, but the frontal armour of a tank turret would shrug it off, no problem.)

[Damian90]

You admitt however that this is a very risky approach?

Against a Chemical Energy attack (HE, HEAT, HESH) having the engine there is a very big positive point.

Look at IFV and APCs, why do you think the engine is in the front?

When the Merkava was initially developed, CE rounds were the premier tank killer round.

When Merkava was designed, also ATGM's were less potent. What worked against 9M14, might not work against 9M133, and definetely no standard IFV will be capable to protect it's crew against 9M133 only because it have front mounted engine.

Not to mention that IFV's and APC's need front mounted engine for ergonomic reasons.

Coming back to KE rounds:

Also the hope is that the round is possibly deflected on its way through the engine and energy is removed from the penetrator as it passes through the engine.

(Takes a fair amount of energy to vaporize cast steel/iron)

So that when it hits the bulkhead/main armour it is not striking with full efficiency.

You need to remember long rod penetrators are designed to hit point first.

Deflecting the rod penetrator projectile off course so it strikes sideways on, spreads the energy over a far bigger area than if it hit point first, and this is a serious degradation of performance.

The problem is that bulkhead separating engine compartment from crew compartment in Merkava, is not some super thick armor plate, in fact it looks to be rather thin steel.

As I said, a risky approach these days to mount engine at front of MBT.

[Hedgehog]

You admitt however that this is a very risky approach?

Isn't all warfare?

The Israeli design philosophy is crew survivability comes first.

Every component of the tank that can act as a device to protect the crew can and will be utilized.

That engine is a f**k off big piece of spaced armour.

OK, it may not be as effective as "Kontact-5" "Knife" or "Duplet" Armour, but it won't add any weight to the base model tank either.

If you have to sacrifice an engine for the few seconds it takes to save a tank crew's life.

So be it, chances are, the tank is buggered anyway.

The Russian/Warsaw philosophy is small size matters.

Trouble is, is due to the design decisions made with the T-72/T-90, such as the ammunition placements, is that they have a nasty tendency to catastrophically explode when hit.

The same is true with the Leopards, that unprotected hull bunker is big liability when a round gets past the armour.

Both of the above designs have the engine at the back, when in 99% of the cases it does bugger all in adding to the protection of the tank.

The round has done the damage by the time it even gets to the engine.

I know which one I'd like to be in.

The idea of having the thin armour on the front is to stop "nuisance" immobilizations.

You want to keep out 14.5mm (for example) and the lower end of RPGs otherwise anyone with a cause and a gun will be able to immobilize an MBT, which are mobile weapons systems, designed to use 2 or more fire positions at a time.

If anything bigger than 14.5mm (again example) is firing at you then yes, you do want be seeking a hull down defensive position as it is more than likely a threat to your vehicle's continued capabilities.

Can you appreciate the Israeli point of view now?

Can you understand their design decisions?

Even if you don't necessarily agree with them?

[Damian90]

The Israeli design philosophy is crew survivability comes first.

Hard to agree with it analising Merkava design.

You know, ammunition, non isolated from crew, and I seen effect of direct hit in to rer hull where bulk of ammunition in Merkava is stored, not better than in case of direct hit in to T-72 ammunition storage.

OK, it may not be as effective as "Kontact-5" "Knife" or "Duplet" Armour, but it won't add any weight to the base model tank either.

Funny thing is that Ukrainian or Russian sollutions are not only more efficent, but also lighter.

The Russian/Warsaw philosophy is small size matters.

Trouble is, is due to the design decisions made with the T-72/T-90, such as the ammunition placements, is that they have a nasty tendency to catastrophically explode when hit.

Ah, ah, ah. Soviets understood this preaty well, and tried to solve the problem but without large turret with large bustle.

Ever heard about Object 450?

The same is true with the Leopards, that unprotected hull bunker is big liability when a round gets past the armour.

This is why I like M1's design. Pitty that dr Phillip Lett Jr chief engieer of the team that developed M1 at Chrysler/GDLS and his team does not receive respect and acknowledgment in general public they deserve.

I know which one I'd like to be in.

M1?

Can you appreciate the Israeli point of view now?

No, it is inefficent.

Can you understand their design decisions?

Perfectly, Merkava Mk1 was a primitive tank in terms of armor protection, some sollution needed to be found within limitations of then existing Israel state. It is perfectly understandable.

It does not means however we need to cultivate this myth of Merkava tank.

[GSprocket]

None.

Look at IFV and APCs, why do you think the engine is in the front?

So the passengers can exit through a large door without climbing over under or around the engine.

It is true that a few APC/IFV do have rear mounted engines, but these tend to be conversions of standard obsolete Tanks, or are considered to have some issues with usability/armour protection.

(e.g. rear engine in BMD or BMP-3 with rear/roof exit for infantry, or rear engine(s) in BTR 60/70/80 series with dismounts exposed to fire from all round during mounting/dismounting operations (normal APC arrangement with rear doors permit the vehicle bulk to shield mounting operations when oriented on the enemy at least... though the side door does sort-of permit dismounting without halting if absolutely required (not something as easy to do with a ramp))

[Hedgehog]

You know, ammunition, non isolated from crew, and I seen effect of direct hit in to rer hull where bulk of ammunition in Merkava is stored, not better than in case of direct hit in to T-72 ammunition storage.

Hmm wasn't aware it had an unarmoured bunker

Funny thing is that Ukrainian or Russian solutions are not only more efficient, but also lighter.

Maybe, but you still need an engine to move, not going to get very far without that, are ya?

Ah, ah, ah. Soviets understood this pretty well, and tried to solve the problem but without large turret with large bustle.

Ever heard about Object 450?

Hmm looks like a falcon 2 turret.

This is why I like M1's design. Pitty that dr Phillip Lett Jr chief engieer of the team that developed M1 at Chrysler/GDLS and his team does not receive respect and acknowledgment in general public they deserve.

Eh well everyone has their favourite.

No, it is inefficient.

Well its as efficient as they could make it. as you say:

Perfectly, Merkava Mk1 was a primitive tank in terms of armor protection, some sollution needed to be found within limitations of then existing Israel state. It is perfectly understandable.

If you want to rectify this, you'd need to start again.

(Or buy M1s)

It does not means however we need to cultivate this myth of Merkava tank.

I'm not.

However I guess we could conclude from this debate.

With a front engined Tank, that the armour goes in front of the engine.

That way the engine acts like a spall liner rather than the main armour.

So the passengers can exit through a large door without climbing over under or around the engine.

There's that too.

[Hedgehog]

You admitt however that this is a very risky approach?

Getting out of bed is a risky proposition.

Honestly I don't know, that's why teams design these things.

When Merkava was designed, also ATGM's were less potent. What worked against 9M14, might not work against 9M133, and definetely no standard IFV will be capable to protect it's crew against 9M133 only because it have front mounted engine.

Last time I looked IFVs had armour too.

Not to mention that IFV's and APC's need front mounted engine for ergonomic reasons.

Yeah but the engine does add to the PROTECTION!!!

The problem is that bulkhead separating engine compartment from crew compartment in Merkava, is not some super thick armor plate, in fact it looks to be rather thin steel.

Well thats news to me.

As I said, a risky approach these days to mount engine at front of MBT.

Well using the Engine as a spall liner behind the main armour in this manner makes this a sensible proposition.

But you have your point of view, I have mine.

[Red6]

Merkava was not designed to deal with IED's, it was also never designed for urban warfare. This is completely idiotic myth widespread by pseudo experts like these talking silly things on Discovery Channel.

Merkava from the begginign was designed for defensive armored warfare, just like M1 and Leo2.

This is a fact, however Israelis did not have special armor technology at the time when Merkava was designed, so they decided to use simple, purely steel spaced armor. For turret it was easy task to get there enough frontal protection with spaced array. Hull was a bit more tricky, thus Israel Tal decided to place powerpack up front. It was a good decision back then. But a fatal mistake was to keep this design scheme when special armor was avaiable to Israel. In fact Merkava Mk3 had special armor only on turret, hull front was weakly protected. Merkava Mk4 have slightly better front hull protection, but still inferior to any other modern tank.

Also what people don't know, is that Merkava belly armor was also not designed to defeat IED's, it was designed only for slightly better protection against mines. To achieve relatively good protection against IED's, Merkava also needs additional belly armor just like M1, Leopard 2 or any other tank.

Another myth is that Israelis were first to develop ERA, no it is not truth. First ERA was developed in Soviet Union after WWII. However it took years before design could had been refined, first ERA kits had just too much explosive and were not practical.

However first composite armor was codeveloped in UK and USA during WWII in form of first modular armor codenamed HCR2 for M4 medium tank, it was crude and primitive armor design, but it worked.

So Israelis were never leaders.

Also first active protection systems were developed in Soviet Union, these were systems like Dhozd and Drozd-1, not including some experimental work. Drozd-1 had been used during Soviet invasion in Afghanistan in small numbers.

So again, Israelis were not even leaders in active protection systems development.

T-72 is still better protected than Merkava Mk1 and Mk2 in terms of pure armor protection. When early Merkava models used primitive spaced steel armor, T-72 used more advanced composite armor.

As for T-72 design, in reality it should never be created, and it is not that engineers hated Soviet Union or were drunk (another myth).

The original order of Ministry of Defence of the Soviet Union, was for UKBTM design bureau to design a T-64 variant with V-45/V-46 diesel engine insteald 5TDF diesel engine.

Initially UKBTM engineers did so, and created Object 172. However creating their own tank design meant that they would won state prizes and had privilages. So they stole in fact KB-60M design bureau turret and hull design from T-64, and redesigned it by replacing original suspension with their design of upgraded T-62 suspension, original 6ETs mechanical loader with AZ-125 electric autoloader, and engine 5TDF with V-46, this is how Object 172M was created that finally lead to the original T-72 "Ural".

And M60A3 is not more survivable per se. It have just smaller probability of having ammunition cook off because M68 gun uses ammunition with metal propelant charge cases, 125mm 2A46 gun used in T-72 series, uses ammunition with combustible propelant charge cases that are more vurnable. If M60A3 would use similiar cases, it would be even more vurnable due to it's size and how ammunition is stored inside.

Israelis Trophy active protection system is very simple in operation, and there is nothing special in it.

As for ERA development, Israeli ERA is considered as... primitive, non universal designs. Israeli ERA can stop only HEAT and EFP warheads.

Russian and Ukrainian ERA is of universal design, capable to defeat HEAT, EFP but also APFSDS types of threats.

So no, Israelis are neither leaders, neither they have any type of advanced ERA.

Powerpack might add some protection against small calliber weapons or obsolete ammunition. But powerpack does not have enough hardness or density to efficently defeat modern ammunition, so in the end it is reducing protection of a tank like vehicle against modern ammunition.

And yes, Merkava is a defensive tank, designed to fight in open battles from behind obstacles or prepared defensive positions.

The M1 and Leo were designed for a mobile defense and basically are offensive tanks. An expert like you shouldn't be confused by the word defense in the name mobile defense. But just in case you need a refreshing in doctrine: http://www.nuui.com/Sections/Military/Field_Manuals/FM3-90/ch10.htm

The Merkava was designed as a defensive tank, and the Israeli's have been dealing with a greater mine and IED threat since the 60s. Even today there are mines in the Sinai, along the Jordain border, etc... IEDs were a viable threat to them, but for NATO forces in Western Europe in a Cold War scenario, it was a limited concern. You're on friendly territory, and many of the artillery or aircraft dispensed mines are light. The risk of a 100 -1000 pound blast from underneath wasn't really present. Command initiated IEDs weren't a real risk either. Most mines would be lighter types if dispensed in friendly areas, and they will be either magnetic, pressure plate, or tilt rod, detonating on the front of the vehicle. Guess where all the mine protection on a M1/Leo type tank is?

Paper/cardboard, Styrofoam, or cotton can defeat modern HEAT and APFSDS with enough material. This is one advantage of a diesel, a lot of steel. Is it homogenous armor with highly predictive results? No. Have there been several cases were the engine has prevented a driver from being hurt/killed on a M2 or M113? Yes.

Russian jumping and shooting tanks, and Russians inventing everything, yes- very cool. Blaser was one of the first fielded ERAs, and the first real wide spread use was in 1982 in the Israel/Lebanon war. Russian tanks are low quality, flawed in design, low tech solutions, and their grease/rubber armor is not what is a concern/interest. The Russians developed the first ADS or whatever we want to call it. They conceptually came up with the first IFV, but they weren't the first with ERA unless we begin playing with semantics. While the performance disparity between Western and Russian MBTs narrowed since the end of the Cold War, it still persists today. It is their ATGMs and RPGs that are proliferating all over the place that pose a concern. But the Russians are not alone. Chinese, Indian, even Western systems are of concern since over the years weapons as well as the leadership in various nations has changed several times over in some cases (Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran...). Look at Syria today (RPG22s, 29s, HJ-8), or Egypt, will they be an ally in 3 years? TOW2 and I think even the TOW2B (which BTW is top attack). And even if the government and military in Egypt holds up (lets hope they do), what weapons slipped out while Morsi was in power. While not everyone can buy a T-90, and we will not go to war with Russia anytime soon, you'll find good RPGs in the weapons bazaars in the poorest of countries. The German Armbrust was a threat when we were in the Balkans (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armbrust_%28Panzerabwehrwaffe%29), how did that happen? After the event of Black Hawk Down (1993), we temporarily sent armor to Somalia and the "at the time" new ERA which you see often mounted on Bradley's today, had to be mounted because of the RPG threat (http://24thida.com/24th_division/division_history_tredway_long.html forgotten in the annals of time). This is one of the poorest places on earth, but you could literally shop for an RPG at a bazaar and walk away with it hanging off your shoulder.

Yes, but the Israeli's have a system (Trophy) that works fairly well, and they have it fielded in sufficient numbers to make an impact, while others brag about their theoretical systems they don't have. Read what I wrote about Quick Kill early on. The problem with some Russian systems especially complex electronic and optic based is that even if they have some good ideas, translating them into actual products is where things go wrong. Russia isn't Japan.

But the M60A3 doesn't use combustible casings, so it's a moot point. You're talking hypothetical what if, as if that changes what is. It's a design flaw of the Russian tanks. But in reality there is more to it. The M60A3 is also less flammable and has its fuel cells under some armor, while simple WP arty/Molotov will take out a T72 because of the exposed fuel tanks horizontally mounted on the rear. It's just a poorly designed tank that gave survivability consideration but in a way that makes one wonder what the engineers were thinking. These weren't new concepts or ideas that they violated.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Red6

[Damian90]

Hmm wasn't aware it had an unarmoured bunker

Well, this is how one of crews ended.

Merkava Mk2

This was Merkava Mk4

"Safe" ammunition storage :heu:

Maybe, but you still need an engine to move, not going to get very far without that, are ya?

And engine at the rear is perfectly ok. Besides this, I preffer to have this engine at rear just in case, it will not stop modern APFSDS or ATGM, but smaller RPG's might have problem with it.

Hmm looks like a falcon 2 turret.

This?!

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/andrei_bt/18425682/39235/39235_900.jpg

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/andrei_bt/18425682/40287/40287_900.jpg

If you want to rectify this, you'd need to start again.

(Or buy M1s)

Who said that starting all over again while being more experienced and having more capabilities is a wrong thing? Sometimes it is nececity.

Yeah but the engine does add to the PROTECTION!!!

Against what? This is important question you need to ask yourself.

Well thats news to me.

Newest Merkava Mk4, bulkhead does not look like superthick armor.

[Damian90]

To moderators, I could not answer in one single post, so sorry for writing one after another.

The M1 and Leo were designed for a mobile defense and basically are offensive tanks. An expert like you shouldn't be confused by the word defense in the name mobile defense. But just in case you need a refreshing in doctrine: http://www.nuui.com/Sections/Militar...M3-90/ch10.htm

The Merkava was designed as a defensive tank, and the Israeli's have been dealing with a greater mine and IED threat since the 60s. Even today there are mines in the Sinai, along the Jordain border, etc... IEDs were a viable threat to them, but for NATO forces in Western Europe in a Cold War scenario, it was a limited concern. You're on friendly territory, and many of the artillery or aircraft dispensed mines are light. The risk of a 100 -1000 pound blast from underneath wasn't really present. Command initiated IEDs weren't a real risk either. Most mines would be lighter types if dispensed in friendly areas, and they will be either magnetic, pressure plate, or tilt rod, detonating on the front of the vehicle. Guess where all the mine protection on a M1/Leo type tank is?

When Merkava was designed, there were no IED's. Insurgency then was a more classical insurgency than what we know today. And mines were allways the same threat for everyone.

Oh, BTW Merkava Mk4 after IED blast, not especially better result than any other tank.

Paper/cardboard, Styrofoam, or cotton can defeat modern HEAT and APFSDS with enough material. This is one advantage of a diesel, a lot of steel. Is it homogenous armor with highly predictive results? No. Have there been several cases were the engine has prevented a driver from being hurt/killed on a M2 or M113? Yes.

And against what that engine protected? Modern APFSDS? Modern large calliber ATGM? Or even modern large calliber RPG? Obviously not, most such cases are small obsolete RPG's with low penetration capabilities.

Oh and guess what, from construction point of view, there is no engine at front of driver compartment in M2, M113 or Merkava, it is on his right side.

Russian jumping and shooting tanks, and Russians inventing everything, yes- very cool.

Stop being childish and open your mind for some knowledge.

Blaser was one of the first fielded ERAs, and the first real wide spread use was in 1982 in the Israel/Lebanon war.

Blazer not Blaser. And being fielded first does not make it first designed ERA.

Russian tanks are low quality, flawed in design, low tech solutions, and their grease/rubber armor is not what is a concern/interest.

But this is not adult approach to discussion. You are not open minded, neither open to any kind of technical or historical knowledge concerning this topic.

Their tanks are not low quality. In fact one of the first tanks with trully modern fire control system was T-64B fielded in 1976. If equipped with PNK-4S commander cupola, it had even real hunter killer capabilities. This is not low quality.

Their design solutions were not flawed, this is another myth. Their philosophy was different.

And hard to call low tech solution for example 9K112 system with 9M112 missile fired from gun tube. This solution actually worked very well compared to US MGM-51 Shillelagh system.

The Russians developed the first ADS or whatever we want to call it. They conceptually came up with the first IFV, but they weren't the first with ERA unless we begin playing with semantics.

They were also the first ones to design ERA. The idea of counter explosion protecting vehicle came up in USSR during WWII. However as any new idea it needed some development, and they had problems with their own conservative generals.

While the performance disparity between Western and Russian MBTs narrowed since the end of the Cold War, it still persists today.

From the mid 1960's to 1980 they had superioroty in tanks development.

T-64 was first mass produced tank with composite armor. And when it was fielded it was immune from it's frontal 60 degrees arc to any kind of NATO anti tank weapon.

It is their ATGMs and RPGs that are proliferating all over the place that pose a concern. But the Russians are not alone. Chinese, Indian, even Western systems are of concern since over the years weapons as well as the leadership in various nations has changed several times over in some cases (Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran...). Look at Syria today (RPG22s, 29s, HJ-8), or Egypt, will they be an ally in 3 years? TOW2 and I think even the TOW2B (which BTW is top attack). And even if the government and military in Egypt holds up (lets hope they do), what weapons slipped out while Morsi was in power. While not everyone can buy a T-90, and we will not go to war with Russia anytime soon, you'll find good RPGs in the weapons bazaars in the poorest of countries. The German Armbrust was a threat when we were in the Balkans (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armbrus...abwehrwaffe%29), how did that happen? After the event of Black Hawk Down (1993), we temporarily sent armor to Somalia and the "at the time" new ERA which you see often mounted on Bradley's today, had to be mounted because of the RPG threat (http://24thida.com/24th_division/div...dway_long.html forgotten in the annals of time). This is one of the poorest places on earth, but you could literally shop for an RPG at a bazaar and walk away with it hanging off your shoulder.

What's the point, we are discussing tanks, not Somialia bazzars.

Yes, but the Israeli's have a system (Trophy) that works fairly well, and they have it fielded in sufficient numbers to make an impact, while others brag about their theoretical systems they don't have. Read what I wrote about Quick Kill early on. The problem with some Russian systems especially complex electronic and optic based is that even if they have some good ideas, translating them into actual products is where things go wrong. Russia isn't Japan.

But Russians also have working active protection systems fielded in significant numbers.

"Drozd-1" was used en masse in their naval infantry units, because they used mostly older tanks that needed active protection.

TSzU-1-7 "Shtora-1" system is standard issue equipment of Russian T-90 and T-90A tanks as well as some subvariants of T-80U tank.

And there are other systems like "Drozd-2" or "Arena".

Also they are continuing to develop new models of active protection systems for next generation of their vehicles.

But the M60A3 doesn't use combustible casings, so it's a moot point. You're talking hypothetical what if, as if that changes what is. It's a design flaw of the Russian tanks. But in reality there is more to it. The M60A3 is also less flammable and has its fuel cells under some armor, while simple WP arty/Molotov will take out a T72 because of the exposed fuel tanks horizontally mounted on the rear. It's just a poorly designed tank that gave survivability consideration but in a way that makes one wonder what the engineers were thinking. These weren't new concepts or ideas that they violated.

Ah, so in your opinion combustible propelant charge cases are also flaw of M1A1/A2, Leopard 2, Leclerc, Challenger 1&2, Merkava and so on and on?

And guess what, T-72 also have fuel tanks inside, and these outside even if they will burn, will not harm the tank itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v3MZErD4kg

T-72 after firing trails, you can see that outer fuel tanks were hit and didn't harm tank.

Also there were tests with T-80U or T-80UD which were hit in exterior fuel tanks, again it did not harm the tank.

If fuel stays outside, vehicle is perfectly safe.

Oh and you probably don't know that UK, US and Israeli scientific research proved that fuel is very good addon protection.

Leopard 2 also have fuel tanks outisde it's hull installed in overtrack sponsons:

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/3808/kadubleo2paliwo2.jpg

Yellow shows placement of exterior fuel tanks.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/1010/abrams00.jpg

M1 tanks use fuel also as additional front hull protection, fuel tanks are placed in their own isolated compartments.

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/2624/challenger2hull.jpg

Challenger 2 also have fuel tanks installed inside it's overtrack sponsons that acts like additional protection.

You want to say that all these tanks are flawed designs? And another surprise, actually many tank designs have similiar design solutions. Oh my, for Red6 they are all flawed designs!

But hey, M113A3 have also external fuel tanks, it is also flawed design? M2 IFV was also planned to have fuel tanks removed from it's interior to external storage box for increased safety and survivability... but probably it was flawed decision? :heu:

UKBTM engineers that created T-72 can be criticized, but not for vehicle survivability, as back then vehicle protection philosophy was to only stop projectile doing harm to crew by using only armor protection.

More advanced approach was researched at KB-60M/KMDB design bureu by Aleksander Morozov and his colegues by projects like Object 450, Object 477 and Object 490.

In late 1980's to 1990's similiar approach was researched at KBTM design bureau with their Object 640 and UKBTM design bureau with their Object 195.

In 1990's through first decade of XXI century, KMDB design bureau also researched safe ammunition storage, creating detachable external ammunition storage and autoloader module for T tanks.

Similiar work was performed in Russian with project of universal turret "Burlak".

[hoggydog]

guys can I just say...

Never mind which of you are right or wrong (hey you might both be wrong!) you both know way more about tanks than me

Seriously, this amount of knowledge and passion is great to see and I am sure I am not the only person learning from this thread (even if I am only dipping in and out of it).

keep it up and thanks for sharing.

... but remember to play nice A bearded man once said that truth depends entirely on ones own point of view.

[lavictoireestlavie]

The Namer chassis:

The Namer seems to be fairly similar to the Merkava 4 upfront, which it is based on.

[lavictoireestlavie]

Some more images that show the armor profile/concept of the Merkava 4:

[Grenny]

Russian tank quality...My uncle served in the GDR army tank corps. The CCCP made t72m where of shitty qulity. For the ones made in poland they suspected outright sabotage.

Also after reunification we had several t62 t72 bmp1/2 as hard targets...they performed poorly in the protwxtipn area. Turret front at 2000m cracked like an egg by a 105mm gun. Bmp pierced by rifle ammo at 200m

Just my 2ct

(edit: their designs are pretty good and to the point. But one can trust that the average robotnic will fuck it up at the workbench :-P )

[Damian90]

Russian tank quality...My uncle served in the GDR army tank corps. The CCCP made t72m where of shitty qulity. For the ones made in poland they suspected outright sabotage.

Also after reunification we had several t62 t72 bmp1/2 as hard targets...they performed poorly in the protwxtipn area. Turret front at 2000m cracked like an egg by a 105mm gun. Bmp pierced by rifle ammo at 200m

Just my 2ct

What do you expect from downgraded export variants?

Warsaw pact and USSR allies or clients outside the pact never received any goodies.

When Poland first received export variants of T-72 tank, our engineers concluded that electric system is of obsolete type.

Actually Polish manufactured T-72M/M1 were better quality than these received from Soviet Union.

Soviets were paranoid that Warsaw pact nations would rebel against them, this si why they never give us better weapon systems they used.

Some export T-72's did not even had composite armor in their turrets, only homogeneus steel armor, and actuall thickness of turret armor was significantly reduced.

However I strongly recommend to watch Russian TV documentaty Броня России, if someone does not know russian don't worry, archieve video and photo materials are worth it. This is probably one these very rare TV documentaries where knowledge is mopre important than these stupid TV show stunts.

Complete playlist

Worth to watch especially that there are archieve videos showing early and later work on Soviet active protection systems, but also explosive reactive armor and so on.

[12Alfa]

"When Merkava was designed, there were no IED's. Insurgency then was a more classical insurgency than what we know today. And mines were always the same threat for everyone."

This is a false statement IED's have been on the battlefield from WW1 onwards.

They have become more common due to the triggering devices that are now in our every day lives, also the internet has allowed anyone that can read build one. Reading reports from the Isreal/Arab conflicts one can see the use of IED's.

Oh, BTW Merkava Mk4 after IED blast, not especially better result than any other tank.

What does this prove?,nothing.Anyone can post pics here, for example I can post a pic of a MK4 that survived a blast,it means nothing. Show us other tanks placed in the same situation and conditions and then we can compare the result,your assessment is flawed with this statement.

Hits vs non kills on Merkava's is better than T tanks of various quality in most of what I've read over the last 40 some years.

We all know that any tank can be destroyed.Most of us believe that the survivability of the Merkava is better/acceptable, compared to Russian tanks.

My 2 cents

Edited March 13, 2014 by 12Alfa

[Marko]

Russian tank quality...My uncle served in the GDR army tank corps. The CCCP made t72m where of shitty qulity. For the ones made in poland they suspected outright sabotage.

Also after reunification we had several t62 t72 bmp1/2 as hard targets...they performed poorly in the protwxtipn area. Turret front at 2000m cracked like an egg by a 105mm gun. Bmp pierced by rifle ammo at 200m

Just my 2ct

(edit: their designs are pretty good and to the point. But one can trust that the average robotnic will fuck it up at the workbench :-P )

From what I have read the only version of the T-72 that was superior

To the Soviet variant of the T-72A was the Yugoslav M-84 better engine optics etc.

[Damian90]

This is a false statement IED's have been on the battlefield from WW1 onwards.

They have become more common due to the triggering devices that are now in our every day lives, also the internet has allowed anyone that can read build one. Reading reports from the Isreal/Arab conflicts one can see the use of IED's.

Show me a wide spread use of IED's versus Israeli forces prior 1990's.

Merkava was not designed with IED's in mind, proof for that is Merkava Mk4 also received additional belly armor after several incidents.

What does this prove?,nothing.Anyone can post pics here, for example I can post a pic of a MK4 that survived a blast,it means nothing. Show us other tanks placed in the same situation and conditions and then we can compare the result,your assessment is flawed with this statement.

What is flawed? That Merkava like any other tank will have difficulties to survive large IED blast?

Hits vs non kills on Merkava's is better than T tanks of various quality in most of what I've read over the last 40 some years.

Then your knowledge is extremely limited unfortunetely.

During 2nd Chechnya war when Russian forces analized it's past experiences, survivability of their tanks increased.

First step to improve T-72 survivability was to reduce ammunition storage to only autoloader. These 22 rounds in AZ-125 type autoloader are extremely difficult to hit.

Second step was to improve combat readiness by making double checks of ERA kits. Crews before heading in to combat must be certain that reactive elements are placed inside each casette or module.

Third step was to introduce insensitive propelant charges, it is slow pace and in limited numbers but I heard they were working on this.

Thanks to such simple adjustments, T-72B tanks in Chechnya during 2nd war, had greatly increased survivability.

There was incident where T-72B had overheated engine during battle, engine shuted down, crew and their tank was under constant fire from RPG's for about 30 minutes before they could run engine again.

Tank had limited damage, and crew was perfectly ok.

Recently there was also presented a modification for AZ-125 autoloader with armored plates covering it from top and sides.

http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut0809/T-72BA/T-72BA001.htm

Here you can read a good article about modifications for T-72B tanks.

Besides this, when Israelis shared reliable data about their tank losses. Afterall Merkava become also propaganda symbole.

We all know that any tank can be destroyed.Most of us believe that the survivability of the Merkava is better/acceptable, compared to Russian tanks.

Faith and knowledge are completely opposite things.