hansbroger wrote:Mighty_Zuk wrote:1. Side hull armor on tanks like Abrams, Leopard, T-72, Challenger, is very thin and won't hold up against anything larger than a 14.5mm bullet or anti-personnel PG-7. But there is no evidence so far to suggest the Merkava 1-3 have thicker side armor than those mentioned above.
The only place where they do have thick side armor, is on the turret on 2 specific versions - Merkava 2D (not in game) and Merkava 3D.
But that doesn't warrant more than 1-2 points above the standard side armor.
2. I was talking about 2 different parts of the turret "nose" armor. A part of it is directly in front of the mantlet, and another part is in front of the turret cheek.
3. I wouldn't exactly call it photo "evidence" if you don't know neither the source or background of these pictures (place or time). At least I can give a source for the photos I provide.
I've already sent them to a veteran to find out the background for them. If it turns out to be a production variant of a Merkava 1-2, then I will believe you. If it is not, then not.
1. MBT side armor was generally rather robust against most contemporary non-MBT threats, especially if it was toting at least K1 (which was prolific ITF) on the side skirts that "modicum" of side armor started working very well against all sorts of CE anti tank weapons especially when spacing comes into play. Generalizing statements like this do not help the skeptical get behind claims that singular, non/poorly corroborable, anecdotal sources which back impressive, world beating capability claims are somehow better than the counterclaimed good but less.. "exceptional" performance that seems to exist as the consensus. And it's tougher for people like me to take your word for your sources when known qualities of units are generalized in a grossly inaccurate way, panned or dismissed out of hand. It's tough for this forum to take world beating stat claims at face value for any faction. Period. Especially when there is a large and well corroborated differing opinion with equally convincing yet more extensive expert opinion that can be further corroborated by open source research...
Tanks universally have thin side armor. Aside from weight saving, a thin armor can still be effective in defending frontal arc (usually 30° to each side) against even high caliber KE shells.
For this reason every tank has a thick armor plate by the front, and thin side plates behind it.
http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/201 ... ckness.jpg
To fix this, there are applique armor that adds on top of the basic armor.
For example Abrams has TUSK:
Challenger has TES(H):
http://www.militarymodelling.com/sites/ ... 5/cr2c.jpg
Leclerc has AZUR:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2930/1427 ... c28c_b.jpg
But these are not part of the base armor. These are applique.
Applique that was added many years after the tank's production began. Even the T-72 didn't get the K1 right away.
There is an applique for the Merkava 3 that could justify higher side armor, but it was neither modeled in game, nor was it ever accepted into service:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... kava10.jpg
Bottom line: The Merkava didn't have especially good side armor until the Mark 4, and it's balanced anyway by good FAV.