Eugen Systems Forums

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:
http://www.bestdreamworks.com/hobby/items/1956//h1.jpg

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.

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.

If you "have sources" but unable to show any of them, then how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

I provided information and photos, and I have shared my sources. I have also brought expert's analysis of the specific tank variant, and also took information from other threads and forums, also with sources to back them up.
You provided photos whose context you don't know, with no sources to speak of.

If you were confident that I am wrong, you would try and correct me. But resorting to ad hominem attacks shows that you actually lack founded arguments.

You keep telling me that I am biased and only think what "my country" does is the best. If that was the case you wouldn't see me talking about the Merkava at all.

Mighty_Zuk wrote:If you "have sources" but unable to show any of them, then how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

I provided information and photos, and I have shared my sources. I have also brought expert's analysis of the specific tank variant, and also took information from other threads and forums, also with sources to back them up.
You provided photos whose context you don't know, with no sources to speak of.

If you were confident that I am wrong, you would try and correct me. But resorting to ad hominem attacks shows that you actually lack founded arguments.

You keep telling me that I am biased and only think what "my country" does is the best. If that was the case you wouldn't see me talking about the Merkava at all.

Because i gave you 2 pictures that proved you wrong on so many levels, and yet you hold onto your fantasy. You do not understand why there was a welded 76mm plate there, and still ignore the picture evidence. What is the point in me telling you anything, when you are this far into your fantasy?

I'm not wasting anymore time on you. I think the 2 pictures i delivered from my sources have proven you wrong well enough to show that you are a walking information scam.

This is the last message ill waste on you.

Mighty_Zuk wrote: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

Bottom line: The Merkava didn't have especially good side armor until the Mark 4, and it's balanced anyway by good FAV.

Applique skirt armor is a new thing in the west but it's old news in the east.

Yup but all the same the casually dismissed side hull of the T-72 consists of rolled steel plates, which were welded together. The thickness of the upper plates (covering approximately 60% of the height) is 80 mm, while the lower section is covered by 20 mm thick steel plates at 60° angle from the vertical., skirts add 25 mm thick reinforced rubber plate plus a 60cm airgap. Easily protection against most HMG and autocannon fire. When combined with K1 or better, K5 the protection became truly considerable against HEAT, especially unitary warheads. Bear in mind T-80 and T-64 have an additional rigid metal array on which the K1 array is hung which lays over the reinforced rubber side skirt, unlike the T-72's direct application to the rubber skirt and provides additional spacing.


In all honesty everything I have read about the Merkava armor scheme tells me that until later Merkava III it was protected by a robust spaced steel armor array taking advantage of steep angling and incorporating BDD style rubber/resin+steel composite overlay in the case of glacis and turret applique or in the case of the later armor modules, layered, spaced bulging plate arrays with in the case of the uparmored II and III additional BDD style applique placed above the modules. Overall a very effective and cost effective, if heavy for level of protection style of armor. Furthermore this armor technology was easily obtainable from the west in timeframe as well was well within the industrial capabilities of Israel of the time. A positive note however is that this armor layout and the severe sloping of the turret not doubt entitles practically the entire line to heavy top armor.

Overall I think you undervalue the side armor of Merkava II/III and slightly overvalue the FAV, especially as the whole engine+transmission as armor bit is terribly extrapolated in wargame. While Merkava may very well have a very high "Single Use" FAV it really needs to be well within the average of other MBT's in its class when it comes to the actual FAV assigned to it, furthermore it probably has growth potential when it comes to SAV that can be used to compensate and there certainly will be much less resistance to Merkava SAV growth should the FAV be more in line with the norms achieved by far more technologically ambitious and expensive integral special armor arrays rather than current, more providential stat assignments..

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/

I would not rate ARMOR Magazine very high on my credibility list; its other articles dont exactly come as unbiased and sourced.

The article gives no indication of what this "special armour" is; for all we know it could be spall liner; after all the weight did not change from I to II so any increase in armour value would be minor, if at all.

Yakhont wrote:I would not rate ARMOR Magazine very high on my credibility list; its other articles dont exactly come as unbiased and sourced.

The article gives no indication of what this "special armour" is; for all we know it could be spall liner; after all the weight did not change from I to II so any increase in armour value would be minor, if at all.

It may have been published in ARMOR magazine (in the 80's), but I consider it valid because of the article's author. not the platform.
Ogorkiewicz was known to have participated in numerous military projects including tank developments, and he was personally familiar with Israel Tal, which might explain why he gained access to the Merkava.

There is no data actually on the weight. We only know official weight, which is 63 tons for Merkava 1-2, and 65 tons for Merkava 3-4.
Those are stats shown on the internet.

For example, everywhere I read, the Namer (APC based on Merkava) weighs 60 tons. IRL when I talked to a maintenance crew who were working on a Namer CEV, and said it was nearly 67 tons.

Just look at the Dor Dalet upgrade for example. It included some very thick applique over the turret sides of Merkava 2 and 3, and on the Mark 2 it also included a thick frontal armor applique. Yet official weight remained completely unchanged.

I think the frontal armor for Merkava's are fine considering the engine is positioned in the front but I do think there should be an engine malfunction when getting penetrated in the front to show its real life disadvantage.

yeppers wrote:I think the frontal armor for Merkava's are fine considering the engine is positioned in the front but I do think there should be an engine malfunction when getting penetrated in the front to show its real life disadvantage.

Would be a good approach since the engine is situated in the front.

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.