Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

User avatar
The W:AB Noob
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4568
Joined: Fri 12 Jul 2013 22:29
Location: United States, Central Time Zone
Contact:

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby The W:AB Noob » Wed 5 Oct 2016 04:58

With my limited knowledge of Hebrew, I believe that some of the tank names can be edited.

Mag'ach 6 Bet Gal > Mag'ach 6B Gal
Mag'ach 7C Gimel > Mag'ach 7C G
Sh'ot Kal Dalet > Sh'ot Kal D

Bet, Gimel, and Dalet are all names of letters in Hebrew.
Changing these would be more in line with the naming conventions of the rest of the Israeli tanks such as that Merkava IIB. Right now it's like saying "AH-1 Double-U Supercobra".
And on that note, please change the Japanese tanks to the actual numbers, not the anglicized transliteration. eg, Nana-Yon Shiki C > Type 74 C

Fluent Israeli speakers/IDF veterans, please correct me if I'm wrong.
W:RD Sandbox Mod 5.4.3 Click -> Image

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

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Mighty_Zuk » Wed 5 Oct 2016 10:17

Rimgrimner wrote:
Mighty_Zuk wrote:
Uhm... okay?
Come back when you're not offended.


I am offended by your ignorance :)

http://i.imgur.com/UXuZif4.png

http://i.imgur.com/6hqVjFD.png

Again you show to have zero knowledge on how things work. If you take a high hardness steel plate and back it with a soft steel plate, it is technically composite armor. You think too much of the word composite. You are not thinking of what kind of composite it is and nor how its functionality is.

Those 2 pictures show you 2 very simple things, and i hope you are smart enough to take this and quiet down about your 800-850mm LOS on the merkava 2 turret because you are full of it. Do you know how welding works? Do you see that the front of the Merkava 2 is hollow?

The Abrams uses up to 6 layers of different materials to defeat both KEPs and HEAT threats. What do the Merkava have in comparison to that? It has different hardness steel layers. The only great thing that the Merkava line actually works well against is HEAT shells.

A APFSDS shell would go straight through it like butter.

Unfortunately i am very sick of you and your incessant endless rampage of Israel glorycornholing that one can see across several forums. You are biased. You dont know in-depth 1/10th of what your country produces. You spread false information and turn a blind eye when people prove you wrong. :)


When I say composite material I'm not talking about laminated steel. Ogorkiewicz referred to the composite armor as "special armor", different than the laminated steel armor that was prominent in the Merkava 2A.

I cannot comment on these pictures, because I don't know their context. Are they a prototype, a test-bed? Because it's unlikely they would stick a brick between 2 open armor modules just to hold the gun from falling. Let alone official sources film the protection scheme at such sensitive times.
If that is indeed a prototype, which I am inclined to believe, then I am not surprised they built a mock-up. After all, these air gaps are too large, and plates too non existent to do anything against HEAT. Almost makes someone wonder how the Merkava 1 managed to sustain that many ATGM and APDS hits and not be penetrated during the fighting with the SAA in 1982.

Also, LoS always includes air gaps as well, even for what I believe is a prototype.
Even the Wedge shaped armor on the Leopard 2A5 for example, packs a serious air gap.

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

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Mighty_Zuk » Wed 5 Oct 2016 10:19

hansbroger wrote:
Rimgrimner wrote:
Mighty_Zuk wrote:
Uhm... okay?
Come back when you're not offended.


I am offended by your ignorance :)

http://i.imgur.com/UXuZif4.png

http://i.imgur.com/6hqVjFD.png

Again you show to have zero knowledge on how things work. If you take a high hardness steel plate and back it with a soft steel plate, it is technically composite armor. You think too much of the word composite. You are not thinking of what kind of composite it is and nor how its functionality is.

Those 2 pictures show you 2 very simple things, and i hope you are smart enough to take this and quiet down about your 800-850mm LOS on the merkava 2 turret because you are full of it. Do you know how welding works? Do you see that the front of the Merkava 2 is hollow?

The Abrams uses up to 6 layers of different materials to defeat both KEPs and HEAT threats. What do the Merkava have in comparison to that? It has different hardness steel layers. The only great thing that the Merkava line actually works well against is HEAT shells.

A APFSDS shell would go straight through it like butter.

Unfortunately i am very sick of you and your incessant endless rampage of Israel glorycornholing that one can see across several forums. You are biased. You dont know in-depth 1/10th of what your country produces. You spread false information and turn a blind eye when people prove you wrong. :)


Now those are some interesting pics! and a serious airgap :o definitely in keeping with the rest of the spaced armor philosophy and provides great standoff for HEAT but agreed, effectiveness against KE is dubious and its unlikely to have been filled with special armor modules.

Israeli "special armor" modules seem to model the Soviet/UK budget approach of a thick steel plate sandwiching a rubber plate and with a thinner steel plate to complete the sandwich, up to the Merk 4 at least which displays far more use of other composite materials. They also do not seem to be comparatively any thicker than those used in the T-72B turret array.

Especially as the armor for the Merkava 2 turret in that critical position seems to be mostly bolt on top. There's a rather large uncovered area around the gun and the shot trap is not uparmored at all. A shell hitting the turret front a foot+ from the barrel is probably dealing with the same protection scheme as Merkava 1. While it's not shoddy T-80U K5 placement bad its still rather perplexing that they'd leave a bald spot like that
Image


Are you talking about the gun mantlet or the opening for the COAX?
Either way, we're not talking about Leclerc level turret weakspots.

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 13:48

Mighty_Zuk wrote:
Rimgrimner wrote:
Mighty_Zuk wrote:
Uhm... okay?
Come back when you're not offended.


I am offended by your ignorance :)

http://i.imgur.com/UXuZif4.png

http://i.imgur.com/6hqVjFD.png

Again you show to have zero knowledge on how things work. If you take a high hardness steel plate and back it with a soft steel plate, it is technically composite armor. You think too much of the word composite. You are not thinking of what kind of composite it is and nor how its functionality is.

Those 2 pictures show you 2 very simple things, and i hope you are smart enough to take this and quiet down about your 800-850mm LOS on the merkava 2 turret because you are full of it. Do you know how welding works? Do you see that the front of the Merkava 2 is hollow?

The Abrams uses up to 6 layers of different materials to defeat both KEPs and HEAT threats. What do the Merkava have in comparison to that? It has different hardness steel layers. The only great thing that the Merkava line actually works well against is HEAT shells.

A APFSDS shell would go straight through it like butter.

Unfortunately i am very sick of you and your incessant endless rampage of Israel glorycornholing that one can see across several forums. You are biased. You dont know in-depth 1/10th of what your country produces. You spread false information and turn a blind eye when people prove you wrong. :)


When I say composite material I'm not talking about laminated steel. Ogorkiewicz referred to the composite armor as "special armor", different than the laminated steel armor that was prominent in the Merkava 2A.

I cannot comment on these pictures, because I don't know their context. Are they a prototype, a test-bed? Because it's unlikely they would stick a brick between 2 open armor modules just to hold the gun from falling. Let alone official sources film the protection scheme at such sensitive times.
If that is indeed a prototype, which I am inclined to believe, then I am not surprised they built a mock-up. After all, these air gaps are too large, and plates too non existent to do anything against HEAT. Almost makes someone wonder how the Merkava 1 managed to sustain that many ATGM and APDS hits and not be penetrated during the fighting with the SAA in 1982.

Also, LoS always includes air gaps as well, even for what I believe is a prototype.
Even the Wedge shaped armor on the Leopard 2A5 for example, packs a serious air gap.


Its not a prototype. This is you trying to explain away pictures, as always, when someone corrects you. The welds show the thickness of the actual armor and the spaced gaps between the turret front and secondary plate. There is also a third. Which puts the armor around the 186mm mark without including the angling from the 10mm of the first plate.

You calling prototype is also, typical you. Anything to defend your fantasy that the Merkava is...."perfect and better than everything". Its not a prototype. Trust me, your words are not anything to be taken seriously because you frantically try to protect your wishful thinking of a line of tanks that do not live up to your fantasies.

800-850mm LOS. So that means out of 800mm LOS 186mm is steel. 614mm is air then. And is useless against APFSDS :lol: :lol: :lol: You dont even know how the different projectiles react to different armor types. It is useful against HEAT btw, which explains the ATGM hits.

And for some reason, you cling to this "special armor" thing. The only evidence you have of anything of such is because "a guy wrote it sometime ago". If this was true, then where are all the others mention about it? That one person says/writes it without any evidence and none of the other authors around mention it then you have a problem. Its not a problem i have, because i know the armor makeup of the Merkava 2. Which is at best, as hansbroger said:
hansbroger wrote:
- a serious airgap :o
- effectiveness against KE is dubious
- unlikely to have been filled with special armor modules.
- thick steel plate sandwiching a rubber plate and with a thinner steel plate to complete the sandwich


steel and rubber. Welcome to the 1960's in the 80's.

Mighty_Zuk wrote:But its speshul armur!


....No.

Luckily a person like you are not in charge of anything as a VIP or such. You would ruin a game that asks for accurate numbers for a tank.

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

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Mighty_Zuk » Wed 5 Oct 2016 14:45

Rimgrimner wrote:Its not a prototype. This is you trying to explain away pictures, as always, when someone corrects you. The welds show the thickness of the actual armor and the spaced gaps between the turret front and secondary plate. There is also a third. Which puts the armor around the 186mm mark without including the angling from the 10mm of the first plate.



If it is not a prototype, and a functional production variant, then may I know the source of these pictures? The first picture seems to violate military censorship code if it reveals the armor, but on the other hand, at the time only official sources could take these photos.
By the way, if we assume you are correct, and the turret is 186mm and hull is 217mm over the nose, then MANTAK appears to have lied to me, since the Merkava 1 would weigh 40 tons and not 63.




You calling prototype is also, typical you. Anything to defend your fantasy that the Merkava is...."perfect and better than everything". Its not a prototype. Trust me, your words are not anything to be taken seriously because you frantically try to protect your wishful thinking of a line of tanks that do not live up to your fantasies.

800-850mm LOS. So that means out of 800mm LOS 186mm is steel. 614mm is air then. And is useless against APFSDS :lol: :lol: :lol: You dont even know how the different projectiles react to different armor types. It is useful against HEAT btw, which explains the ATGM hits.

Even if it is true (which I doubt it is), the photo shows only the portion in front of the gun mantlet.
You claim that I don't know how different projectiles react to different types of armor, yet I have not heard you explaining in what manner the armor you presume it is, works on the Merkava to be either efficient or inefficient against either type of threat.


And for some reason, you cling to this "special armor" thing. The only evidence you have of anything of such is because "a guy wrote it sometime ago". If this was true, then where are all the others mention about it? That one person says/writes it without any evidence and none of the other authors around mention it then you have a problem. Its not a problem i have, because i know the armor makeup of the Merkava 2. Which is at best, as hansbroger said:

There are very few worthy publications on the Merkava 2. Most publications' deepest level of detail is the engine's location at the front.
Rolf Hilmes, on the other hand, is a very well known German expert. And although I don't know what sort of access he had to the Merkava, I do know that Ogorkiewicz (source was ARMOR magazine publication in the 80's) has gained special access to the Merkava through his close connections with Israel Tal.


Mighty_Zuk wrote:But its speshul armur!


....No.

Luckily a person like you are not in charge of anything as a VIP or such. You would ruin a game that asks for accurate numbers for a tank.


I like how 90% of your argument is "but you said it so it's not true wah wah wah".
Ad hominem attacks are not a real argument. They are a mere compensation.

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 14:57

Mighty_Zuk wrote:
I like how 90% of your argument is "but you said it so it's not true wah wah wah".
Ad hominem attacks are not a real argument. They are a mere compensation.


1. No, you may not know the source.

2. you do realize that the armor isnt only placed in the front right? There's a reason i suggested the Merkava line to have more side armor than other tanks in Red Dragon. Thinking that the frontal armor is where all the weight is is just ignorance. And ignorance is bliss, which you've portrayed several times.

3. It shows a portion of the gun mantlet, and the welded picture shows where the first actual armor plate begins. You dont know anything do you?

4. There are very few, and those publications you've mentioned are laughable.

5. The thing with the ad hominen attacks, is that even if i use actual photo evidence, you've proven yet again that u try to ignore them and run to your blissful dream in which you bathe in your own 1meter of steel fake merkavas. :)

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

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby Mighty_Zuk » Wed 5 Oct 2016 15:33

Rimgrimner wrote:
Mighty_Zuk wrote:
I like how 90% of your argument is "but you said it so it's not true wah wah wah".
Ad hominem attacks are not a real argument. They are a mere compensation.


1. No, you may not know the source.

2. you do realize that the armor isnt only placed in the front right? There's a reason i suggested the Merkava line to have more side armor than other tanks in Red Dragon. Thinking that the frontal armor is where all the weight is is just ignorance. And ignorance is bliss, which you've portrayed several times.

3. It shows a portion of the gun mantlet, and the welded picture shows where the first actual armor plate begins. You dont know anything do you?

4. There are very few, and those publications you've mentioned are laughable.

5. The thing with the ad hominen attacks, is that even if i use actual photo evidence, you've proven yet again that u try to ignore them and run to your blissful dream in which you bathe in your own 1meter of steel fake merkavas. :)


1)So you don't know the source either?

2)I know it's not placed in the front exclusively. But considering the Merkava was designed primarily for tank vs tank engagements, putting thick side armor when the weight was already excessive, is counter-efficient.

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.

3)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.

4)Okay, if 2 well known experts are laughable, then you must have some really awesome sources. May I see them?

5)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.

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

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby hansbroger » Wed 5 Oct 2016 17:07

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...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... VyeUGJwq3Q


2. Moving the goal posts.....

3. Those photos seem to exist as the consensus point of Merkava 1/2 (under applique in 2) frontal turret composition among modelers/enthusiasts and "experts" across multiple forums, I say "experts" as there is no true way to confirm expertise short of provision of real name and credentials/CV (which even then can simply have been googled and appropriated...) but that's never around so usually we rely on preponderance, pedigree and diversity of evidence as well as the degree by which that evidence corroborates and aligns with benchmarks and knowns (like what was concurrently used on chieftan/T-72/T-55 for budget special armor..?) for determining it's veracity. The ability to be further corroborated by open source research never hurts either.

They also seem to be from an assembly line, depot repair etc... Why the blocks? Multitude of logical maintenance/component installation related reasons why you would want to physically isolate and immobilize the main gun of a tank. Simple solutions are great and the wooden block is certainly still alive and well as a go to tool for many jobs.

Currently many armor values seem high or budget priced for their performance. The 3 baz super heavy seems to have been worked out well but it's a meta run by heavies and heavy mediums so it's really armor discrepancies down the chain that have the most impact. That these values often seem to fly in the face of what was achievable elsewhere with MBTs of otherwise identical capabilities invites healthy skepticism.

As simply an observer and not a beta participant, most of these tanks look (final stats of course still not known and still being tweaked) to be peer beating leaders on the field. The fact that they have pricepoint winning kinetic performance combined in many cases with armor protection (of highly disputable veracity) exceeding the abilities of most price point competitors is intensely problematic for balance. These discrepancies have existed before in Wargame but at such low and diffuse levels that they functioned as flavor and assymetrical balance. In this matter however, it is tank tab wide and certainly not the case, with a pervasive overmatch of this kind in such a bleeding edge field as MBT armor one has to wonder if systemic overestimation of Merkava armor capabilities is to blame and there is corroborable evidence that the Merkava armor scheme performs no better and no less than its peer competitors.
Last edited by hansbroger on Wed 5 Oct 2016 17:32, edited 1 time in total.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

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 17:31

Mighty_Zuk wrote:5)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.


I have my sources, and i do not share them with people like you. Because like i said, you are dense dreamer. :)

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

Re: Israel tank historical balance suggestion.

Postby hansbroger » Wed 5 Oct 2016 17:36

Rimgrimner wrote:
Mighty_Zuk wrote:5)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.


I have my sources, and i do not share them with people like you. Because like i said, you are dense dreamer. :)


Well that's just as bad :?

To not share Officially Privileged/controlled knowledge/Photos from people who shouldn't be sharing said photos is one thing. But if it's a reasonable public source then it should be shared regardless of how it will be ignored and denied by others.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests