Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

User avatar
Borscht
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed 30 Oct 2013 15:44
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for Merkava tanks

Postby Borscht » Wed 5 Oct 2016 23:10

What about those moments when a shell simply doesn't penetrate the armor? Doesn't happen by Wargame logic, cause we can have T-55 hitting Leo2 from the front with (VERY) relative success.
Where I'm trying to get with this is if we will have engine crits from frontal penetrations, then ALL the rest of the nations should have tons more fire system and movement related crits done to them, after all the crew in them is much less protected, right?
SOUP OF GLORIOUS DESIGN

Rimgrimner
First Sergeant
Posts: 214
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2016 14:32
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Rimgrimner » Wed 5 Oct 2016 23:40

Mighty_Zuk wrote:Results just came in:
The tank in the photos is neither the Merkava Alef (early prototypes), nor an operational Merkava 1.
The closest thing you could say is an LRIP for testing purposes.


Sorry, but you are wrong. Anyone can leave for a few hours and come back and say "the results blabla says no". :lol:

Wouldnt have used those pictures if i hadnt known what it was. Its the same shape, density and size of the actual turret. You cant explain this away. You can however, try to make up a bad excuse like that though. I have a decent amount of well knowledgable friends that work with tank technicalities and analysis as a job.

Trust me, i believe them and their information, way above yours, which has proven over and over again to be false. :lol:

PS: Did you try to google search the pictures? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Mighty_Zuk
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 335
Joined: Sat 10 Sep 2016 17:56
Contact:

Re: Suggestion for Merkava tanks

Postby Mighty_Zuk » Wed 5 Oct 2016 23:55

Borscht wrote:What about those moments when a shell simply doesn't penetrate the armor? Doesn't happen by Wargame logic, cause we can have T-55 hitting Leo2 from the front with (VERY) relative success.
Where I'm trying to get with this is if we will have engine crits from frontal penetrations, then ALL the rest of the nations should have tons more fire system and movement related crits done to them, after all the crew in them is much less protected, right?


Yep. In tanks like Leopard 2, Leclerc and Challenger 2, about half the ammo is situated in the front. So frontal penetrations to them would usually leave a burning wreck or a dead driver depending on where it hits.

Mighty_Zuk
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 335
Joined: Sat 10 Sep 2016 17:56
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Mighty_Zuk » Thu 6 Oct 2016 00:00

Rimgrimner wrote:
Mighty_Zuk wrote:Results just came in:
The tank in the photos is neither the Merkava Alef (early prototypes), nor an operational Merkava 1.
The closest thing you could say is an LRIP for testing purposes.


Sorry, but you are wrong. Anyone can leave for a few hours and come back and say "the results blabla says no". :lol:

Wouldnt have used those pictures if i hadnt known what it was. Its the same shape, density and size of the actual turret. You cant explain this away. You can however, try to make up a bad excuse like that though. I have a decent amount of well knowledgable friends that work with tank technicalities and analysis as a job.

Trust me, i believe them and their information, way above yours, which has proven over and over again to be false. :lol:

PS: Did you try to google search the pictures? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Don't try to dismiss my claim when you have also claimed to not have a source or background for those photos.

I can show you photos of a Merkava Alef that is exactly the same shape, density (what the hell does that even mean?), and size as a production-ready Merkava 1.

PS: Nope. I didn't google search these. I e-mailed a veteran these photos and he told me it's neither a prototype and neither an operational variant (or production-ready).
The photo with the driver's head sticking out he couldn't identify. But I believe I saw it somewhere earlier.

User avatar
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby hansbroger » Thu 6 Oct 2016 00:20

Mighty_Zuk wrote:Never understood why T-72 had its ERA attached to rubber skirts.
Seemed illogical as any small hit would blow off multiple "bricks" or would detach the whole skirt.
Syrian experience shows that this happens more often than not:
https://017qndpynh-flywheel.netdna-ssl. ... 7kek8r.jpg

What baffles me is even the T-72B3 didn't have its side skirts replaced with steel, despite T-64 and T-80 long ago moving to steel skirts.


On the topic of Merkava, I seem to have made a mistake by misreading an article. According to Ogorkiewicz the Merkava 2 did have a composite armor plate on the hull sides (not just turret sides or hull front), and as a result had better side hull protection than any other tank.
However, better than shitty can still be shitty.
Most tanks would have their base side armor (disregard ERA as it's irrelevant here) designed to withstand only large HMG and sniper bullets such as 0.5cal, 14.5mm and their variants.
Another common medium projectile is the Soviet 23mm, but its kinetic energy and penetration power are actually lower than the 14.5mm. Going above that is the 30mm but I have some serious doubts about side armor being good enough to withstand 30mm munitions.
Even with composite side armor I don't think it covers a larger spectrum of threats than other tanks.

Source:
https://tankandafvnews.com/2015/04/22/f ... r-journal/


Love this quote:
it is worth pointing out that the author is quite clear in stating that the Merkava is not intended to function as a tank/APC hybrid. This claim still gets made in various online forums from time to time. Ogorkiewicz states that “the fact that the Merkava can carry infantrymen has been misinterpreted by many people, including several contributors to ARMOR, who have wrongly assumed it to be some kind of tank-cum-infantry carrier. Those who have done this not only misunderstand the design of the Merkava, but seem to have no idea of the monstrous size of any tank which would carry not only a major caliber gun and a full load of ammunition, but also a squad of infantry.”

"Moreover they ignore the obvious fact that infantry, carried in any vehicle which fulfills its main purpose and engages in combat with its armament can contribute nothing to the tank except casualties"


But anyways..

Like the hull the turret of the Merkava is unconventional. In particular much of it consists of two spaced layers of cast steel armor (consistent with rimgrimners pictures). In addition the Mark II has special armor at the front and the sides (again not specified where or what)
Image

Again he says nothing about "composite" armor, only mentioning that it is "Special". Also as others have mentioned, this is Armor. It's good for finding things that need to be looked up an corroborated rather than being an end all publication for stats and capabilities, just look at their historical estimates about soviet armor compared to more recent articles in the 1990s and 2000s. This article was written for the november-december 1985 edition when the Merkava was young indeed. The fact that he does not specify at all what the "Special" armor is indicates that he's probably just re-wording press release information and really has no idea what the "Special Armor" is or what its composition/effectiveness is.

Perhaps this special armor is a fiberglass textolite type composite like that used on Soviet tanks which were certainly observable in Lebanon but despite this article getting cited over and over and over again we have no idea if this special armor is a ribbed steel plate, a composite material, a rubber+metal sandwiched bulging plate.... who knows? It's only ever referred to vaguely as "Special Armor" on some highly generalized location on the tank.

That being said Ogorkiewicz is a prolific auther on AFV topics and he has written some excellent pieces in armor as well so i'm sure he has a good, more recent and.. objective piece on the Merkava in a more recent edition of Armor.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

User avatar
Borscht
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed 30 Oct 2013 15:44
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Borscht » Thu 6 Oct 2016 01:09

Honestly, all this chatter about what armor the Merkava has is...impossible without official sources. It's a fact that Israelis had access to tank examples from almost all major tank manufacturers of the 50-60's (USSR, UK, US) which considerably helped in the development of their own prototype, but Merk 3 and obviously 4 are way ahead of what Merk 1 was. Sigh...if only I went to be a tank mechanic and not a truck mechanic (HaPil ha-mashpil ftw :D) I could actually contribute to this. And unfortunately I lost contact with a friend who was a commander of Merk4...
Throwing shit at each other and saying "No, I'm right and you're wrong" is rather pointless, no?
SOUP OF GLORIOUS DESIGN

AJE
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 384
Joined: Sat 7 Sep 2013 07:22
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby AJE » Thu 6 Oct 2016 01:33

hansbroger wrote:Perhaps this special armor is a fiberglass textolite type composite like that used on Soviet tanks which were certainly observable in Lebanon but despite this article getting cited over and over and over again we have no idea if this special armor is a ribbed steel plate, a composite material, a rubber+metal sandwiched bulging plate.... who knows? It's only ever referred to vaguely as "Special Armor" on some highly generalized location on the tank.

The special armor on the Merkava II is basically Stillbrew (steel and rubber sandwich held under compression by large bolts). The large bolts on the Merkava II's side are a big giveaway. Of course, that armor is mainly anti-HEAT, and is no more effective than just the steel plate against KE.

User avatar
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby hansbroger » Thu 6 Oct 2016 04:14

AJE wrote:
hansbroger wrote:Perhaps this special armor is a fiberglass textolite type composite like that used on Soviet tanks which were certainly observable in Lebanon but despite this article getting cited over and over and over again we have no idea if this special armor is a ribbed steel plate, a composite material, a rubber+metal sandwiched bulging plate.... who knows? It's only ever referred to vaguely as "Special Armor" on some highly generalized location on the tank.

The special armor on the Merkava II is basically Stillbrew (steel and rubber sandwich held under compression by large bolts). The large bolts on the Merkava II's side are a big giveaway. Of course, that armor is mainly anti-HEAT, and is no more effective than just the steel plate against KE.


Yeah that's my two cents, at least for the applique, however the internal plate array of the Merkava III modules at least seems to be composed of spaced bulge plates. Judging from the use of fiberglass in the ammunition storage it's not inconceivable that there could be a sheet of textolite or similar material sandwiched in somewhere else in the hull, haven't figured out where they'd put it in the turret yet (it's rigid sheets which usually results in it being placed in larger flat arrays like the hull glacis).

Given the collusion between IDF representatives and British industry it's highly believable that they could have picked up stillbrew from there. Similar arrays were also visible in the BDD arrays that made their way to EB nations like the CSSR. Not only is it the most likely technological solution, it's also far more probable than the alternative.

This is hardly a death sentence to Merkava, far from it. In fact the combination of BDD/Stillbrew style applique over modules with spaced special armor is a combination that can very well support excellent armor values, the BDD turret array on the T-55AM/T-62M has been estimated by Zaloga to give 350-400mm extra KE/HEAT resistance to the tank's frontal turret arc and glacis protection which is hardly inconsiderable. Just because it is not as light and weight effective as western/USSR composite metamaterials they aren't necessarily any less effective and, again go to explain the Merkava's weight.

In fact it seems perfectly likely that Merkava III Baz could qualify for 21-22, maybe even 23 FAV despite lacking fancy "composite" materials considering the protection given by the T-72B Obr-89 array with K1 overlay qualifies for 20 AV it hardly seems like a stretch of the mind to think that a Merkava III turret relying on a similar armor array philosophy would qualify for higher when the BDD/Stillbrew overlay is taken into consideration. An extra 350-400mm rha equivalency is nothing to scoff at and when combined with spacing and plate arrays does far more to explain the armor capabilities of Merkava I/II/III.

When we combine the known qualities of Stillbrew/BDD, armor spacing, the performance of Soviet bulging plate arrays such as those in the T-72B combined with estimates of the base turret/hull it turns out the Merkava is perfectly well armored even if it's various flavors of spaced steel and steel-rubber sandwich. It's not as weight efficient as western metamaterials and it's surely not 24 FAV class but it's certainly effective, cheap and modularly replaceable... In short Classic IDF.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

User avatar
Grabbed_by_the_Spets
General
Posts: 6605
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 11:40
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Grabbed_by_the_Spets » Thu 6 Oct 2016 04:30

Still think Merkarva's FAV should in no way be equivalent to M1A2's and Leo-2a5's.

I'm not even a fan of western tanks and I'll admit there's no way foreign nations can match their armour, especially for that time period.
Image

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13128
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby another505 » Thu 6 Oct 2016 04:43

Here's a suggestion for gameplay and realism

viewtopic.php?f=155&t=58321
[EUG]MadMat wrote:We are aware that the Merkava III armor isn't to the level of a Challenger 2, but we didn't want Tzahal to end up with a high-end tank with only 20 front armor.


If Merkeva doesnt deserve 22 and yet you want Israel to be alright as standalone, then make Merkeva 3 Baz 2 cards! Is just like Kyu Maru Shiki and Scandinavia STRV 121, no one is really complaining about them being 20 and 19 FAV anyways.
And since Merkeva 3 Baz is prototype, being 2 cards of 2 doesnt change anything to blue

If it deserves to be 20FAV then let it be.
Image
Of Salt

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 14 guests