Merkava Mk 4 -VS- Leopard 2A6
although with my head outside wont do me much goodAnother thing I liked about Israeli Armor Tactics the tank commander with his head outside the tank. Lose a lot of tank commanders that way the enemy will lose a lot of tanks.
It might boil down to visibility. I almost always had my head outside the AAV-7 execpt when we drove on or off a ship that is. No one was shooting at me.
Official change to my vote without ground troops the Israelis would win not doubt about it.
I rememeber one night before we were recovered from the Carter years and did not have night vision equipement I had to follow an M-60 tank the way I knew when to slam on the breaks was I could feel the exhaust in on my skin. The night was dark but the sandy road was fairly bright. To this day I don't know how we made it down that road that night in colum of blind armord vehicles. I must have used the Force.
Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you.
He is training with minimum food or water, in austere conditions, day and night.
The only thing clean on him is his weapon.
He doesn't worry about what workout to do...
His rucksack weighs what he weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him.
The True believer doesn't care 'how hard it is'... he knows he either wins or he dies.
He doesn't go home at 1700... he is home.
He knows only the cause...
Now, who wants to quit?
It might boil down to visibility. I almost always had my head outside the AAV-7 execpt when we drove on or off a ship that is. No one was shooting at me.
Official change to my vote without ground troops the Israelis would win not doubt about it.
I rememeber one night before we were recovered from the Carter years and did not have night vision equipement I had to follow an M-60 tank the way I knew when to slam on the breaks was I could feel the exhaust in on my skin. The night was dark but the sandy road was fairly bright. To this day I don't know how we made it down that road that night in colum of blind armord vehicles. I must have used the Force.
Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you.
He is training with minimum food or water, in austere conditions, day and night.
The only thing clean on him is his weapon.
He doesn't worry about what workout to do...
His rucksack weighs what he weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him.
The True believer doesn't care 'how hard it is'... he knows he either wins or he dies.
He doesn't go home at 1700... he is home.
He knows only the cause...
Now, who wants to quit?
Last edited:
Lunatik
Active member
Is a taller profile good or bad for a tank?
Some say it is good because it enables the crew to hide behind things like hills, objects and trenches, etc, and still be able to observe the battlefield and engage targets while others argue that comes at the cost of stealth and tactically it is a lot more important. What is your opinion on that?
Btw,
Merkava Height: 2.66 m
Leopard Height: 3.0 m
Some say it is good because it enables the crew to hide behind things like hills, objects and trenches, etc, and still be able to observe the battlefield and engage targets while others argue that comes at the cost of stealth and tactically it is a lot more important. What is your opinion on that?
Btw,
Merkava Height: 2.66 m
Leopard Height: 3.0 m
Last edited:
lower profile is better. You can always take hull down positions, regardless of your tanks low profile. however, when your turret is too low, your main gun and co-axial macihne gun cant be lowered much(case point- T-55).
40 cm is alot of height actually, are you sure about those figures for the Mk 4?
40 cm is alot of height actually, are you sure about those figures for the Mk 4?
Lunatik
Active member
I'm not sure if the figures are correct, they're from Wikipedia. The info column is listed under a photo of Mk 4, so I'm guessing those are Mk 4's charasteristics? Mk 3 and 4 should have the same height. I and II are slightly shorter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava
Pale Rider
Active member
HA HA, such silliness.
You have two very capable tanks designed to fight in different environments, just looking at the vehicle suspensions should show all of you this.
You have two very capable tanks designed to fight in different environments, just looking at the vehicle suspensions should show all of you this.
Canadian Leo2A4s work just peachy in Afganistan ( they leased them from Bundeswehr ) that said 2A6 has a definite edge in firepower and armor.
Pale Rider
Active member
And the Canadians are using them against what in Afganistan, also they are not LEO 2 A4s. Do you even know what type of armor a LEO 2 A6 uses versus a Merkava 4, I would give them a even match in the turret protection zone, hull is a different story, that goes to the Merkava 4.
Mekava 4 is designed for rocky hilly terrian while a LEO 2 series suspension is designed for cross country sprints at high speeds, neither a Leo 2 series nor a M1 for that matter will match up to a Merkava series mobility wise, especially fighting it on its home territory.
First of all Canadians did lease 2A4s, second of all Merkava uses a mix of indigenous composites and Chobham also they store their diesel in a manner that protects against HEAT.
Leo2A6 has an advanced composite armor, advanced laminate armor on the turret and frontal hull which at current time provides estimated that cumulation rounds have to penetrate 1730-1960mm on the turret.
We can also expand on the upgraded MK III canon vs the new L-55 canon which at current time provides greatest velocity among 'all' tank canons worldwide.
Before you issue b******t statements about hardware because you like some piece of it do some research.
Rorke, do you think that canon's velocity is a key issue in an area like Afghanistan?
Because they wont have to face many armored vehicules over there. I think that reloading time or the size of explosive carried by the round is more interesting in such battlefields...
Or gun elevation... Etc...
Because they wont have to face many armored vehicules over there. I think that reloading time or the size of explosive carried by the round is more interesting in such battlefields...
Or gun elevation... Etc...
No i'm mentioning canon velocity specifically for a tank vs tank scenario, Merkava has an inferior gun and inferior armor, it still doesnt matter that much since the gap in effectivness between all modern tanks is minimal and luck/positioning/locating the enemy first plays a far more important role but as far as tank combat Leo2A6 is superior.
with all due respect rorke no one here knows what type and how much armor is on a merkava MK4.
as for the gun the israeli 120mm is a copy of the german 120mm L44 which is infrior to the L55. however wikipedia says the gun on the Mk4 is improved copared with the L44. i dont know if thats true.
as for the gun the israeli 120mm is a copy of the german 120mm L44 which is infrior to the L55. however wikipedia says the gun on the Mk4 is improved copared with the L44. i dont know if thats true.
Pale Rider
Active member
What is Canada currently using, they do not look like A4 models to me. As far as armor protection goes in regards to both vehicles you do not have a clue on what type of protection either vehicle brings to the table because that is classified information, your numbers are a bit amusing though.
Pale Rider
Active member
At the current time L55 muzzle velocity doesn`t matter a hill of beans for the Americans or Israelis, both have capable ammunition that will perform just as good as DM 63 if not better, now why did the Germans go to a longer tube. You are making statements on subjects that you do not have a clue about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHERMAN
I do not use Wiki as a resource tool but you are correct, it does have better chrome properties and thickness, meaning that it will last a little longer when firing combat loads.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pale Rider
Active member
No, Germany designs its own Tungsten projectiles, but there are Leo2 series countries that use Israeli KE projectiles.
Lunatik
Active member
I'm curious. Do you know if Turkey (Leo2A4) is one of them?
And what's the difference between a KE projectile and a Tungsten one, other than the fact that KE probably stands for Kinetic Energy and Tungsten is the name of an element?