Merkava 4 armor is long overdue to be buffed

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
,
680

Couldn´t disagree more. Ammunition located above the turret ring is also statistically much more likely to get hit, compartmentalized or not. Sure you can go the Abrams route and you end up with a turret that is much heavier than contemporaries because you gotta protect the bustle rack itself, not just the crew. So you need to find the right balance between the ammo you expose the most to enemy fire (above the turret ring) and the ammo you protect just by placing it where its less likely to get hit (below the turret ring). Sure you can argue that Merk 4 hull ammo racks could have been compartmentalized but there are some counterarguments to that:

  • The hull racks are positioned in the area least likely to get hit, that is down and far back into the tank. On itself this is far better than any other tank storing ammo in the hull.
  • The hull racks have protection in the form of fire retardant canisters.
  • Compartmentalizing these racks means less ammo being able to be carried and also neutralized the capability to remove the racks for using the space for other needs (ie. carrying a medic, battalion commander or other types of specialists). Ie. diminishes the tactical flexibility of the tank.

On the other hand, the mechanized bustle rack has better ergonomics than every other manual compartmentalized bustle rack (Abrams, Leo 2, etc.) since the ammo is delivered to the loader everytime through the “stweet spot” and the mechanism saves the loader time and effort to index the rounds, he just presses a button and the right ammo type is delivered. Its also safer since theres only a very small opening for a single round to pass through during the loading process whereas with Abrams or Leo 2 a whole panel opens (during several seconds) exposing all the rounds present in the rack.

That said, I´m not saying the current Merk 4 config is absolutely perfect, even I can think of several options to make it even better.

2 Likes
681

This whole “ammo in the lower hill isn’t likely to be hit/stricken is taking me back to the 70s when the T-64 was “revolutionary”, then the T-72 even moreso!

Hull ammunition never gets hit, isn’t vulnerable, never explodes. Even if I granted you that, the Merkava doesn’t have a carousel Autoloader to capitalize on the ammo being in the hull. You have 10 whole rounds in that bustle rack. Not only this, when you run out of munitions to put down range? Good luck loading the hull ammo quickly into the gun as you are under attack. It’s not in the slightest war efficient. There will always be a push-pull effect, give and take with any doctrine you’d use…
If the ammo is gonna be hit, at least the crew isn’t cooked 95% of the time whenever it eventually happens.

Besides the Armata at least has a smart layout of its hull ammunition having them hug the hull walls, and lay vertical as to lessen the chances the charges would be hit… Meanwhile in the Merkava they lay horizontally giving the most area for detonation. Top attack munitions have great performance, and guidance in modern day. I highly doubt it would have issue with any MBT roof armor.

The same munitions eating through drones + Relikt + K1 blocks and blowing up the carousel. You can have your disagreements, but one thing is clear regardless of what either of us say. NO TANK IS “IMMORTAL” like your friend earlier has claimed the Merkava somehow is. In a real conflict, it’s fate won’t vary much differently from that of the T-72s, T-90Ms, etc…

One for the Abrams has been designed, and built. Not implemented as it would as you said earlier. Drum roll… Add weight. Not to mention be expensive.

682

Bit of a strawman though not entirely false. Statistically through all XX century wars, roughly 2/3 of projectiles impact the tank´s turret. So yes, putting stuff that explode above the turret ring is statistically more dangerous than placing it below. And BTW, T series tank don´t have all their ammo on their floor autoloaders, they have it everywhere through the troop compartment and also including above the turret ring. Its those projectiles which explode much more commonly than the ones on the autoloader, thats been true especially in the Gulf War. Theres a very interesting video by The Chieftain from some years ago explaining just this issue.

That said, Merkavas place most of their ammo at a safer spot than Leclercs or Leopards, which have those big racks at the hull front.

Though combat record in terms of tank losses considering the various wars it takes part in, its pretty much up there. You exchange Merk 4 in the combat it goes through for any other tank in service today and you would get a lot more tanks destroyed and a lot more casualties for sure.

2 Likes
683

Yep. Autoloader and reserve ammunition on the floor, in conforming fuel tanks making for wet stowage are what, 35 rounds? Then some pen pusher ordered to increase it further… Thus ammo is littered everywhere, including under commander seat.

As anecdotal evidence, I recall snippet from interview with UA tanker mentioning significant reduction in catastrophic ammo detonations after they started loading carousel only, without drawback in frontline action. Refilling carousel is task engaging both gunner and commander, thus tank is basically sitting blind duck hence everyone withdrew to second/third line to reload safely anyway. And by then you might as well try and arrange supply truck or drive to supply stash and top up everything else.

685

We don’t have to guess about these things… I can’t post videos here. But you can search for videos of merkavas getting hit in the rear with no ammo exploding or one or two shells basically a tiny contained fireball.
Nothing like the dragon firethrowing of Abrams ammo rack or tankers to astronauts conversion systems the russian have…

But when the merkava gets hit in the back turret were the ammo drum is there is a fire jet… I saw it one time, can’t remember where.

Reloading the drum ready rack while fighting is what all tanks do… there are pauses in war in which you can reload. If there is a shell in the barrel the loader can replenish the drum rear rack just fine

1 Like
687

Wow, flagged my posts for a word that wasn’t even cussing nor does it imply anything in hateful speech other than to be joking. Y’all are soft hearted

4 Likes
688

I’m done with these forums bro. Y’all enjoy talking to the wall of silence called gaijin.

3 Likes
689

Apologies, the intention wasn’t to strawman you, but to rather make the greater point that nothing either of us has said is “absolute”. I don’t think the hull is always going to get hit. Blah blah.

So we are gonna ignore the most likely place for a tank to be hit during WW2 was the upper hull? Usually the front, and sides. From my understanding I don’t think turret ammunition is the most exploded ammunition area of the Tiger II, but the hull rather ammunition. But I’m willing to admit that could be for multitude of reasonings.

The safest place for ammunition imo however was the hull floor at the time. Because blowouts were not a thing.

Tanks are very likely to be hit now, so not separating the ammunition from the crew is just not forward thinking. There will always be evolving ammunition that can reach that floor. T series tanks would be safest if what you said was true. That remains false.

Most times that they’ve ever carried extra ammunition it was not in the turret above the ring. That’s been maintained in practice. Most the extra ammunition were in the front hull on either side of the driver (can’t remember which side was most likely to be filled). And after a certain point in the conflict, crews stopped carrying hull ammunition outside of the carousel, because unlike the NATO Leopard 2s, and Strv 122s it isn’t needed as the carousel carries a decent amount of ammunition on its own.

In the case of the T-90M. It has blast door protections for its remaining ammunition in the bustle rack. I can assure you 9/10 times the reason a T-90M blows up it isn’t because of “ammunition above the turret ring”.

Like you’ve claimed before, the Merkava has very little in the turret. Same goes for the T-72, T-90M, and T-80s. However, we must now break down the differences as you specified “above the ring”.

• T-80 Family : Looking at the T-80 layout. Only the T-80U family (excluding I think T-80UK) has significant turret ammunition in the back of the turret. Having 4 charges, and 6 warheads/projectiles. T-80B family (excluding the Object 292 which was a prototype) has no turret ammunition at all. The BVM having slightly less loose ammunition behind the carousel in comparison to the B variant being the major layout difference.

• T-72 Family: The T-72 from the A to the B3 (2014) to my knowledge all have only two war heads above the turret ring. All the other loos ammunition is actually tightly packed around the carousel. But it is the messiest of the Soviet MBTs in its ammunition layout. But still noticeably less profile than the T-80 Autoloader layout despite this (doesn’t mean it’s safer, this layout against Top Attack is worse because it’s horizontal layout).

Onto the extension of the T-72 Family. The T-90s! T-90 I’m not sure if it has turret ammunition as the T-80UK doesn’t, but it is the same turret as T-72B essentially. If you have information on that specific model let me know. T-90A has no turret ammunition (above the ring). T-90M has turret ammunition in a bustle rack (10 charges, 10 warheads or projectiles).

The mysteries: Idk if the T-80UM2 that got taken out had turret ammo. But the fact the UK didn’t. Makes me believe it may have not. Which then begs the question why did it blow up? If the ammunition was below the ring it should’ve been “safer” which is my point.

It featured in lower intensity combat than the Abrams. And the Abrams had it easy for a good while too. Which had it easier than the T-72 which gets into some of the most hellish conflict scenarios. Hence why the hull armor remained the way it did for a long long time. It wasn’t likely to need it (that’s the explanation given). For the conflicts it arose in. Combat record doesn’t mean all that much on its face without diving into the details.

Heck even going back to WW2 the Sherman, T-34, Tiger, etc tanks combat records fluctuated heavily depending on intensity, their enemies logistics, changes in tactics, the financial aspect of it. Even the difference from WWI to the Spanish Civil War, to WW2. A lot of things changed based on that. I can’t go to one conflict soemthing participated and claim it was the best. As much as I’d love to say the CR.32 was the king of the sky, because it got the most Ariel victories even compared to the monoplane Bf 109. That isn’t the full picture. The CR.32 wasn’t the future. The Biplanes reign of domination was up. The BF 109 was dealing with high intensity combat whilst not being a matured platform.

Modern inert projectiles aren’t exploding. Charges are.

Not even the same size lol. 18 vs 27 is a massive diff. Also the Leclerc can carry 22 rounds in its bustle. The Leo only 16, the Merkava only 10. What makes the racks more dangerous isn’t being at the front necessarily. But rather it’s vulnerability to too attack. If the Merkava was targeted in its ammunition area the effects would be the same, no difference. But again the Merkava has never been in a large scale conflict such as the tanks aforementioned. Besides maybe the Leclerc. No Merkavas are in Ukraine to test that theory. For its sake, hope it never happens, we might get another nerf. We already are trying to get Trophy fixed. Unprotected hull ammunition without a crew capsule like the Object 477, Object 195 Abrams TTB, Armata, Abrams X, etc isn’t safer to the crew vs blowout panel systems. Besides the crews have blamed ammunition near the engine for ammo detonations too in studies. This is behind strong composite, carousel, and an assortment of plates separating yet still it’s unsafe. An engine won’t change this, it isn’t dense enough to put a modern KE on pause, and it doesn’t matter when the top attack munition hits anywhere it can.

Conclusion: In the case of the Merkava the hull ammunition is higher than the T series MBTs hull ammunition (not only because the ride height, and the hull is insanely tall, but also because it’s stacked all on top another), and they lay completely horizontally. Not to mention it has forward hull ammunition right behind the engine. Unless we are gonna do the “they can decide to move it, or not use that rack”. That can be done in any tank. In the case of the T series why even talk about the ammunition outside the carousel at that point when many crews don’t use those racks anymore. One thing the Merkava I think imo would be better than the T series in is dealing with being attacked by artillery. It definitely isn’t mobility kill immune, but it is harder to be put in that position by weaker smaller caliber artillery top down. At least on the first hit. If it’s taking multiple hits, then again that armor fray dynamic is gonna be detrimental.

690

You can empty out the hull ammunition entirely. Low intensity combat doesn’t compel you to need more than 10 rounds. Larger scale combat, you cannot conduct operations this way. From what I can (can’t) see. Most those times the video doesn’t run long enough to watch the tank burn out, and we can’t see inside the tank to confirm it even had half let alone full ammunition (unless you have body can footage I don’t know about). Human free will when you aren’t in an intense situation is a marvel.

691

The carousel to my knowledge doesn’t have fuel tanks on it… At most some Turks the ammo is stored near a wet storage of diesel fuel outside the carousel in the forward or rear hull. Which can help prevent ammo fires. But idk if that’s what you meant. Let me know!

693

Carousel itself isn’t “wet” protected, just sheet metal around it to stop smaller shrapnel. But reserve ammo behind it, as well next to the driver is stored in conforming fuel tanks.

Then in usual Gaijin fashion, I suspect they didn’t modeled separate cookoff multiplier for each and every ammo hitbox, just single value for entirety of ammo. So either you apply lower cookoff chance from “wet” stored ammo to dry carousel, or you apply dry multiplier to wet ammo or you make average bringing everything whack anyway.

694

But I thought the “loose ammunition” was the true danger. Why would the “wet ammo” be safer than the carousel. From what I can understand the ammo in the forward hull. From my understanding: Not every round in that area is encased in fuel, also the fuel prevents outside fires from setting off the rounds as often. But it doesn’t make the ammunition itself not volition when hit.

It would need to be different ammunition, or the rounds would need to be slow burners every time (which isn’t gonna be the case). From what I’ve seen footage wise, most times the ammo sets off immediately (I’m not sure if it’s because the compound it uses in the charges, or what. But that’s the assumption).

695

And you thought correct, “loose ammo” scattered everywhere is most likely cause of ammo cookoff. Both because unprotected and it is more likely to be hit.

Diesel fuel, being rather stubborn to ignite can double as dousing agent, then carousel and “main” ammo reserves also have overwatch of automated firefighting equipment, intended to automatically empty fire extinguishers when spike in temperature is detected. Not the best solution, as more modern firefighting systems also check for spike in brightness, hence you can’t take photos inside of newer hardware during fairs/showoffs - not because muh sekrit but to not trigger firefighting equipment with camera flash.
On T-72 firefighting defense, its TD-1 sensors date back to 1950s. Was it updated in meantime or even whole system was maintained before lil bit of clusterfuck in eastern Europe? I doubt anyone knows the answer.

696

Everything seems to indicate that the propellant used by Russia has an enormous sensitivity, since in all the videos that exist, it can be seen that in many occasions the vehicles (specifically T-72, T-80 and BMP 3, BMD-4) explode completely as soon as they receive the impact, which would be an almost complete explosion of all the ammunition. On the other hand, I have seen videos of Ukrainian T-64s that even received impacts from drones between the chains and did not explode, which I imagine is because they would use ammunition of Czech or Polish origin, which would use Western propellant.