Delivering isnt a problem israel is a tiny country
Producing isnt such a problem also
Israel buy metrials and bulid it in factories which are probably isnt very far from the front line anyway
Belive isnt a proof
And in photos it looks pretty danse so idk
Its 70-80t tank for a reason
Yea ! Now you see my point, Israel doesn’t have these constraints so it can make its dream tank, unlike other countries
Unfortunately believes aren’t proof no… :(
Although there are many people that don’t get this concept
It’s heavy, not dense. Abrams is dense. All the armor is in the front, the Merkava is heavy, the armor is all around the vehicle. So it can never be dense, as it will start reach Maus level of stupidness
1 Like
It can, with a lot of love and car it can grow into a beautiful Merkava one day ❤️
Just make sure to water it daily
Its heavy and dense
Being a maus is an exaggeration and all tho its protected from the side its not insted of the front or smt
It should be high tier heavy tank!
One of the successes of the m4 is that it has alot of protection without being too heavy for its protection weight ratio
The first m4 were the same weight as the m3 with much better protection.
Military ppl said it has no less then leo 2 level of protection
Also i think gaijin rly underastimate the engine armor value which is a big factor but i cant proof it
It’s heavy yes, but relative to other tanks armor it is less dense.
Not saying it is cardboard, but it can’t have large slabs of heavy metal. That is actually not an opinion, but a fact.
-
It will certainly have dense materials inside !! That are working with other composite to make the necessary effects. But it won’t be large slabs of it. As the vehicle weight will skyrocket.
-
An exception will be the front hull armor, it will be probably made out of denser array of metals and ceramics
They’re not. The Leopard 2A4 and T-72 have a poor track record in some countries. Turkey and the middle east especially did not utilize those vehicles well.
The Abrams, Leopard, and similar vehicles would also be of limited use in India and much of the Pacific. If you want evidence for this, look no further than the Philippines adopting the Israeli Sabrah and China fielding the Type 15.
It’s not. The Merkava Mk.4 did not exist during the Cold War. Comparing the vehicle’s ability to stand up to those budgets is foolish at best.
This should show to you that despite the K2 being specialized for South Korea, other countries have seen its potential in different combat.
Both South Korea and Israel have exported equipment to countries not in the same situation as themselves.
For South Korea, that would be Poland, Norway, and such. For Israel, that would be nearly every single European nation, India, China, the US, Philippines, and more.
Israel has exported more.
1 Like
@Alan_Tovarishch can you give me a little insider as to when you will possibly be dropping your report/ pt2 ( and if you need more information if you haven’t already you can go to shiryon archives discord server, lots of open info always going through there if you haven’t checked it out already )
Sadly, no. Got too much on my hands as it is. I´m working on an addendum to Part 1, with more sources that strengthen the arguments I presented there. Together, part 1 and addendum have the necessary material to make a bug report regarding the tanks frontal armor and KE protection effectivenes. Parts 2 and 3 will be nowhere that long and will deal with side armor and roof armor respectively.
Sounds great. I really do hope your work makes some kind of change. I have high belief that you’ll be able to pull it off (no pressure btw, considering it is gaijin after all) I hope to see it soon cause I’m eager to read in on it
1 Like
It’s about design principles. When Soviet tanks were on top, had the best protection even compared to the early Merkava, and MBT-70. It made sense. But that’s because the carousel layout assumes you are stopping the threats, if you’re tank is being penetrated its outside of the design principles, and you get walked. But because the Oplot M has better protection than the average Soviet MBT currently. It’s okay. If the Yatagan had that layout and APS it would be the best. Also UA industry isn’t/hasn’t been funded/backed by powerful western nations for decades directly. So what they’ve managed to do so far is astonishing ngl.
Funny part is, the Merkava, Leopard 2, Ariete, Challenger 2s, etc all have hull ammunition that isn’t well protected either, I doubt a real scenario like what’s happening in UA would a Merkava or a Leo 2 take 10 to 16 rounds to avoid hull ammo… The engine itself isn’t stoping a modern dart. If you’re fighting serious MBTs with modern munitions? Any unprotected hull ammo that isn’t like DM63 is a danger.
Only the Abrams truly excels in this kind of protection. Most everything else is an essentially a glorified Russian MBT (In regards to ammo separation from hull and crew) if you want enough ammo to stay in battle. It is the best in regards to ammo crew protection, nothing comes close.
Yes but the armor of most MBTs doesn’t fray, and come apart in many pieces the way the Merks do no?
I do not surmise it would do all that well in Ukraine compared to even the T-90M OBR 2025… The Abrams is the most survivable tank ammunition storage wise… And it wasn’t invincible. The Merk would’ve not tanked drones the way I’ve seen T-90Ms do so as they have smaller ERA blocks that can block damage and get blown off. Too many hits, and the Merks modular armor comes completely apart catastrophically. Which is bad in a real active warzone full of drones, and peer to peer engagement.
This isn’t even to speak of modern Kinetic threats. Kornets would be the least of the Merks worries. Not to even mention it’s “80” (or “81?”) tons would be stuck in the marshlands worse than the Chally 2, and Abrams (which faired probably the best of the NATO MBTs in this regard. Maybe the Leopard 2A6 being better). The ground pressure is too high for it to be a reasonable tank for the conflict. Not only this, we’ve seen that tanks being slow can be a detriment (T series reverse speeds) and get tanks knocked out. I can imagine a slow accelerating MBT the size of manhattan wouldn’t be uniquely safe.
But you can’t really design a tank that assumes 100 protection from penetration… Modern tanks have accepted this as a fact of life, you are gonna be penetrated. What are you gonna do now ?
the carousel is basically a ready rack with now ammo protection as they need to be ready to be loaded…
(I’m talking about the current state of soviet tank design, obviously if these tanks were in active development like the rest of the tanks in the world, then of course the deal would be different. But like all things in russia it’s all smoke and mirrors there is no active development)
Ammo explosions is one of the first issues you need to address if you want to ensure crew survivability, and the thing is that we saw a lot of merkavas getting hit in the back, as it is a weak spot, but we never see ammo explosions. So the issue has been fixed.
Different issue is the ready rack that has metal plate separating the crew from the ammo, in the merkava there is a 10 drum ammo the small hatch that opens and closes, ehile it’s open there is a risk of ammo explosion. In the abrams the hatch is a lot larger and slower, so while the tank is loading there is higher risk of catastrophic failure of ammo explosion.
Idk and even if it does it diesnt say anything about its effectivnes
Hold on I said Merkava frontal armor is higher in irl than in game how is that bs?
MB misunderstood.
No problem, as for the latest kenetic rounds that are about 900mm in length can the upper front plate of a Merkava tank covering the engine withstand that? 3bm-60 is not the latest Ru round available it is cheap to manufacture and fits in the improved carrousel auto loader. Can the Merkava withstand 829 A3 round, I am not sure either?
1 Like