Merkava vs. Challenger 2

Merkava vs. Challenger 2

  • Merkava

    Votes: 14 38.9%

  • Challenger 2

    Votes: 22 61.1%
  • Total voters
    36
Damien435

Damien435

Active member
Sorry for the delay.

See here for details.

Well, I must admit I was surprised by how well the Merkava did, can the Merkava keep its momentum going into Round 2 when it faces off against the Challenger 2? Whom many consider to be the greatest tank in the world today. You decide, the fate of millions is in your hands, you hold in your hands your own destiny, now come forth young lad and let your voice be heard!
 
I know people rave about the Merkava, but isn't there a rather large shot-trap at the front of the turret ????
 
Very tough choice. I also went with the Merkava for its greater mobility and its emphasis on crew protection. Frankly though, I'd be happy with either of these tanks in my arsenal. The 'weakness' of the Challenger II is its relative lack of mobility compared to its rivals. Plus the Merkava has seen more evolution and is a more mature design.
 
really hard to choose! Interesting topic to search about!

Challenger was very successful during the Persian Gulf war of 1991 and Chieftan also saw extensive combat during Iran-Iraq war and deployed by the Iranians.

But Merkava is a great tank and has seen close quarter combat by the Israeli forces. And it has a better ranking in terms of protecting its crew.

I'll vote later then. Need to read more of members' posts and learn a bit more as well
 
Last edited:
redcoat said:
I know people rave about the Merkava, but isn't there a rather large shot-trap at the front of the turret ????
Click to expand...

No, there isn't.

but for choosing, I choose the Merkava.
 
Last edited:
This is a tough one. The two tanks pretty evenly matched. The Challenger is better armored but slower. That trade off, I'm not crazy about unless I had both. Both have seen a lot of time on the field of battle. But one beautiful thing that the Merkava brings to your arsenal that the Challenger either hasn't got or hasn't proven:
1.) Superb Urban combat ability -- Any tank can do well out in the open, but doing well in a city is something else. Most tanks aren't too good at that. The Merkava is about as good at Urban fighting as a MBT is going to give you.
2.) Speed -- Being able to move fast is more than huge. Getting there first in battle or outflanking an opponent are often as big or bigger than the battle itself.
3.) More years of proven battlefield service. The Challenger has a couple of Wars under its belt. The Merkava has developed through several and every single day in the Holy Land is a day that a Merkava crew might expect to be fired upon at any moment.
4.) Merkava has better anti-mine protection.

On the other hand, the Challenger is a tough nut to crack and very hard to kill, with the toughest armor of any MBT that I am aware of.
 
Both these tanks were designed for different purposes in mind.

The Challenger 2 was designed for fighting in open terrain in Europe. Made for covering long distances (supensionwise not fuel consumption) and long range fighting.

The Merkava was design by Israel for fighting on their terrain specificly. More heavily armored for closed-in and urban areas.

Possibly the terrain would be a factor too.
 
Last edited:
gladius said:
Both these tanks were designed for different purposes in mind.

The Challenger 2 was designed for fighting in open terrain in Europe. Made for covering long distances (supensionwise not fuel consumption) and long range fighting.

The Merkava was design by Israel for fighting on their terrain specificly. More heavily armored for closed-in and urban areas.

Possibly the terrain would be a factor too.
Click to expand...

Yes. They have been designed with 2 different roles in mind so that needs to be taken into consideration.
 
gladius said:
Both these tanks were designed for different purposes in mind.

The Challenger 2 was designed for fighting in open terrain in Europe. Made for covering long distances (supensionwise not fuel consumption) and long range fighting.

The Merkava was design by Israel for fighting on their terrain specificly. More heavily armored for closed-in and urban areas.

Possibly the terrain would be a factor too.
Click to expand...

Both are designed to be main battle tanks. You could take the Merkava and put it in Europe and it would do as well (if not better) then the Challenger while you could take the Challenger and put it in Israel and it would do as well too.

The Merkava has an extremely advanced suspension. It probably has the best cross country performence in the world
 
Why wasn't the Challenger IIE, the latest version of the Challenger, used for this poll? Especially since the Challenger II seems to be getting a lot of criticism from people for its supposed lack of mobility (the IIE has a 1500hp diesel engine as opposed to the old 1200hp one).

There are other differences between the Challenger II and IIE.

From http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/:
"Challenger 2E has a new integrated weapon control and battlefield management system, which includes a gyrostabilised panoramic SAGEM MVS 580 day/thermal sight for the commander and SAGEM SAVAN 15 gyrostabilised day/thermal sight for the gunner, both with eyesafe laser rangefinder. This allows hunter/killer operations with a common engagement sequence. An optional servo-controlled overhead weapons platform can be slaved to the commander's sight to allow operation independent from the turret.

The powerpack has been replaced with a new 1500 hp Europack with transversely mounted MTU 883 diesel engine coupled to Renk HSWL 295TM automatic transmission. The smaller but more powerful engine allows more space for fuel storage, increasing the vehicle’s range to 550km"

Note the hp is the same as the Abrams, despite being a diesel IC engine, not a turbine.
 
Doug97 said:
Why wasn't the Challenger IIE, the latest version of the Challenger, used for this poll? Especially since the Challenger II seems to be getting a lot of criticism from people for its supposed lack of mobility (the IIE has a 1500hp diesel engine as opposed to the old 1200hp one).

There are other differences between the Challenger II and IIE.

From http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/:
"Challenger 2E has a new integrated weapon control and battlefield management system, which includes a gyrostabilised panoramic SAGEM MVS 580 day/thermal sight for the commander and SAGEM SAVAN 15 gyrostabilised day/thermal sight for the gunner, both with eyesafe laser rangefinder. This allows hunter/killer operations with a common engagement sequence. An optional servo-controlled overhead weapons platform can be slaved to the commander's sight to allow operation independent from the turret.

The powerpack has been replaced with a new 1500 hp Europack with transversely mounted MTU 883 diesel engine coupled to Renk HSWL 295TM automatic transmission. The smaller but more powerful engine allows more space for fuel storage, increasing the vehicle’s range to 550km"

Note the hp is the same as the Abrams, despite being a diesel IC engine, not a turbine.
Click to expand...

The Challenger 2E isnt in use with the British army
 
Koz said:
The Challenger 2E isnt in use with the British army
Click to expand...
I know, your point being ... ?

The original contest involved "a list of the six best tanks currently in production " ... well the II isn't in production, the IIE is, and the IIE is the best.
 
Last edited:
I voted for Challenger 2

It has much more powerful engine than the Chieftain and equipped with excellent Chobham Armor. Challenger took part in Operation Desert Storm (1991) where the Iraqi forces failed to take a single vehicle out of combat while Challenger destroyed roughly 300 Iraqi tanks.
Standard equipment includes thermal sights, gun stabilization NBC system as well as mounting points for external fuel tanks at the rear and Combat Dozer Blade at the front.
  • [FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Armament: 1 - 120mm long L11A5 gun, 2 - 7.62mm MG, 2 x 5 barrel smoke dischargers [/FONT]
  • [FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Power Train: Perkins Engines (Shrewsbury) Condor V-12, 12 cyl diesel, coupled to David Brown Vehicle Transmission TN37. [/FONT]
  • [FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Speed: 34.8 mph [/FONT]
  • [FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Range: 279 miles [/FONT]
  • [FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Crew: 3 [/FONT]
  • [FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Weight: 68 tons[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Doug97 said:
I know, your point being ... ?

The original contest involved "a list of the six best tanks currently in production " ... well the II isn't in production, the IIE is, and the IIE is the best.
Click to expand...
I don't think any other countries have ordered the 2E. What's the point of talking about what's best In Greek trials it got less of a score then the abrams and leo. What's the point of talking about what's best if it isnt in service.

seth said:
I am for Challenger 2, because of his survivability and gunpower.
Click to expand...

The Leo, Leclerc, and Abrams can all shoot ammo that gets equal to or better penetration then what the Challenger can fire
 
Last edited:
Doug97 said:
I know, your point being ... ?

The original contest involved "a list of the six best tanks currently in production " ... well the II isn't in production, the IIE is, and the IIE is the best.
Click to expand...

Dude, don't get hung up on the details. There is a reason I just said "Challenger 2" "Abrams" and "Leopard 2". It is easier. I was sticking to generalities because it is easier for people like me who do not put too much thought into armored warfare because quite frankly I still think of tanks as rolling death traps, same as destroyers in the Navy.
 
gladius said:
Both these tanks were designed for different purposes in mind.

The Challenger 2 was designed for fighting in open terrain in Europe. Made for covering long distances (supensionwise not fuel consumption) and long range fighting.

The Merkava was design by Israel for fighting on their terrain specificly. More heavily armored for closed-in and urban areas.

Possibly the terrain would be a factor too.
Click to expand...
It is not difficult to adapt a tank design to different terrain needs. Additionally, the the fact that the Merkava is better designed for Urban/up-close roles and the Challenger is designed with open terrain in mind: Consider that it is very easy for a tank to do well on open, simple terrain and almost any tank can do it. The Merkava possibly even has a bit of an edge over the Challenger II there. It's faster and extremely versatile over rough or level terrain. Adapting the Merkava for cold weather would not be difficult. And it is extremely impressive to me to have any tank that puts up an outstanding performance in Urban fighting. That is very rare and very hard to do.

I'm not sure which can reliably hit and kill at the greatest distance, but the Challenger is somewhat unique these days in the fact that it still has a rifled barrel. The rest of the world has moved to smoothbore main guns for their MBT, but the Brits feel that the rifled barrel grants them something extra. I don't know whether its a good idea or bad idea on the whole, but it definitely creates a tradeoff.

On the Challenger II's side, there is no other tank in the world that is harder to kill. Its a pseudo heavy: Slower and more heavily armored.

Israel doesn't have massive production capabilities, yet they do export and sell Merkavas to other nations. Challenger's are also exported and sold abroad.
 
challenger 2 for sure!! its one of the most heavily armoured tanks in the world and it looks good too--merkava looks like green poop!


gal8_challenger,0.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top