Originally posted by Venger
Yes, small AT rifles or chemical warhead AT weapons - which is a far cry from a front line APFSDS round. The problem with attempting to use Israeli combat experience as a indicator of equipment performance is that they have not faced a front rank army in 30 years. They ARE a front rank army, facing a ragtag group of terrorists and warlords, with the occassional old Russian tank thrown in...
No, I'm talking about AT missiles the Hizbullah used a lot of times.
You are right that Israel didn't face any strong rank army, but then again, neither did Germany nor USA.
But in the "War Games" the Americans have with the Israelis in the Negev Israel usually wins.
one time the Americans won when they pulled a 1973 trick Israel invented on Israel and took them by surprise, but since the IDF is a quick learner that didn't happen again
Anyway, front rank army or not, It's not that hard to operate AT missiles.
By the way, if you think that Israel develops the Merkavah based solely on It's experience with terrorists you are dead wrong.
The Merkavah was tested numerous times against DU APFSDS weapons and found to be well protected against them.
Actually, many tank designers believe the design of the Merkavah (PP at front, and overall design) is the best ballistic design of modern tanks and that it should have been adopted by other Countries a long time ago.
Again, go back to the last time Israel actually was in a war, not an invasion of a already backwards, powerless country - 1973. 2/3 of front line Israeli tanks bought the farm. You were facing decent armies and more modern equipment (thought not a front line army like a European, Russian, or American army).
Exactly. And none of these tanks was the Merkavah.
I remember reading about the History of the Merkava tank, it was first built in 1979 with the
exact lessons Israel learnt in 1973 Yom Kippur war.
See above. Why are you making a unit based on it's 'urban' performance against a bunch of third rate ne'er-do-wells?
In Urban combats the environment for tanks is the toughest.
First of all, the Palestinians used to hide a lot of heavy bombs in the sink openings on the road.
Also, the mobility and speed of a tank in a city is not as good as in open territory, making it much more valnurable to AT weapons, and also giving much more time to the AT holders to aim their weapons at the soft spots of the tank.
You never know where some ne'er-doer will come out from when the **** hole you are in is full of buildings.
I have yet to read a review of the Merkava that indicates that it can carry 4 combat ready personal in pack along with the crew of 4.
Quoted from Defense-Update.com:
Unique among the main battle tanks of the world, the Merkava design features a front-mounted power pack, which presents a heavy mass in the forward area, which protects the crew from enemy attack. This configuration also cleared room at the rear section for a safe exit and enough space to carry a few fully armed infantrymen, in addition to the crew. The rear access hatch allows for the quick and safe exit of injured crewmen or pickup of wounded soldiers for evacuation.
Okay, try a year you actually had to fight an organized army. You know, we sure kicked the holy crap out of Grenada, but we don't use it as a training benchmark. The tank losses in 1973 were grievous.
Yes they were.
I never said that if the Merkava would face a serious enemy it wouldn't be destroyed.
I just said that it's defensive and offensive values are higher than today's other tanks.
Put in mind that the Merkavah Mk. 4 is much more recent than the M1A2.
Also, Israel considered to use the M1A2.
When the Israeli economy was in ****z (and it still is), the Merkava project lacked funds.
They wanted to abandon the Merkava Mk. 4 development project and just buy M1A2 with American-aid money.
So why didn't they? After all, it would be much better for Israel to buy tanks using American money than to continue the expensive Merkava project, but eventually they didn't.
That is beacuse Israeli development has proved numerous times that Israeli-made weapons survive better than the ones they buy from the Enemy.
That is also the reason why USA was very hard against Israel not to sell Israeli spy planes to china, and pressured Israel to stop from developing it's own fighter planes.
That's also why the Uzi has taken it's place as a world leader in it's kind, and also why you will see the Tavor will do the same soon enough.
Israeli weapons are carefully tested every day and under all environments - From the desert of the Negev to the Snow of Mt. Hermon.
Every weapon is built with the lessons taken from the destruction of it's former model.
In such basis, the Model range of Israeli weapons is updated faster than the One of NATO.
A Merkava model for example is renewed completely every 10 years, and even upgraded in the years between those 10.
I'm not sure what you are arguing here, except that it's a better tank launched missile system. This is not in contention - however, it's hardly unique, which is the point.
It's unique in it's functionality.
The LAHAT can use tanks already in battle or helicopters above to coordinate the missile launch of the firing tank - making it possible for a Merkava battalion equipped with Lahat to destroy an enemy battalion before that one even reaches range-of-fire.
There simply isn't any. The F-22 will be a superior all around aircraft. However, the avionics and weapons systems are simply best of class on the F-15 (and most other front line Western aircraft).
The Su-27 tops the F-15 in preformance.
The point is that you want the Merkava to be the best tank in the game, with better A/D than any other armor unit, when it doesn't deserve that change when compared to other top line tanks whatsoever.
Yes it does.
*COUGH* Had Mig-29's WHEN? In 1981? Dude the RUSSIANS didn't have the Mig-29 in 1981...freaking please.
1981?!?!
The invasion to lebanon began in 1982, and the confrontation with the Syrians was in 1985.
But I think the source I used was wrong, and it was Mig 21, not Mig 29.
Oh my!!!!!! Thanks for showing everyone here why you aren't in charge of an armored division...
No problem...
No, but you want it to in the game, and THAT'S the problem. You want to create the Merkava as a uber-Tank in Civ3, where it's not going to face Hezbollah, but front line armies from Germany, Russia, the US, etc... how can you extrapolate the units performance against a rabble into some super-performance against a modern army in the game?
Simple answer: You can.
Merkava Mk. 4 is a tank using the latest armor, latest technology firepower, most advanced guided missiles, and better mobility.
I've rarely encountered a soul as hopelessly myopic - you think that all wars are the wars you saw fought. Except that the largest battle fought in the last 20 years was fought in the featureless deserts of Iraq, not in some urban landscape with refugees and PLO fighters with RPG's. THAT was a war. What you did in Lebanon is equivalent to what we did in freaking Panama. Or Afghanistan. Knock over a pack of halfwits with light arms. In the game, you will be facing other Civs on multiple terrain. Why should the Merkava get a bonus in this situation? It shouldn't.
The Merkava has been tested in mobility in snow and desret, mountain and road.
That kind of different terrain you are talking about?
Also you should know that the Merkava is the only tank in the world capable of going on basalt land without falling apart
Also, you must be mistaken about the arming of the Hizbullah.
Currently they even hold missiles that can reach Jerusalem, and avanced AT weapons.
Remember the weapon ship Karin A, full with modern anti tank weapons?
That was the one that was stopped, think about the ones that are unstoppable, the ones that reach the hizbullah.
!?!?!?! You might want to look into a battle called World War II. Please, go spend some time with some tankers over at the
www.matrixgaming.com boards, in the Steel Panthers forum, and tell them how units are never attacked from behind. I'd love to see everyone have a great laugh.
I went there and subscribed, but I didn't see any steel panthers forum.
What's the forum ID number and name?
I'd wager MOST tanks in WWII died from non-frontal hits.
It's always good to learn new things
Do you have a source for this I can read about?
That's great, have you heard of numerous cases of the Merkava surviving a 125mm APDS round from a T-90? No. Because it won't, especially if hit in the sides or rear (where the enemy WILL shoot you). Hell, even the DU armor on an M1/A2 can be penetrated. But nobody seems to be whining for a special American tank, despite having the most potent tank.
What makes you think the M1A2 is more potent than the Merkava?
It is not better protected, not faster, not better armed and not better designed.
It is not more computerized and not more precise.
Also, I never heard of an F-15 surviving an Air-to-Air missile either, just like most tanks can't survive DU APFSDS weapons.
That doesn't mean it is not better.
Uh, no. The top is still the weakest place on a tank. Every tank. Even the M4. The modular armor can increase protection and glacis angle but a hit from a Hellfire is going to knock it out, period.
The top is still weaker, but no other tank other than Merkavah features full perimeter 360 degrees protection on the turret.
Better protected HOW? Do you know what modular armor even means? It means modular - mobile. Stick on, stick off. Move around. I'll tell you this - the Leopard 2 will blow a whole right through the front of an M4 with it's 55 caliber 120mm gun.
Modular means you acn easily replace it, easily configure it for the battle it is fighting and easily fix a damaged tank.
completely modular armor means that you can stick many different types of armor anywhere on the tank's armor, fitting the battle it is fighting.
It is simple really, the Merkava has that ability, the Leopard doesn't.
Also, the Merkava features the exact same 120mm smoothbore gun the Leopard 2 features, only the Merkava has better protection upfront and in the turret.
Also, the Merkava is newer.
I'd bet that in a real battle the Merkava will win, but we can't know untill we try.
Sure it does - a stationary tank is called a 'casualty'.
Look, every tank that will get hit upfront will become a casualty.
Different being.
1. Crew of the Merkava is more likely to survive a hit
2. The Merkava is more likely to hit back, because the tank itself and it's fire control systems are not damaged, only the engine.
Giggle, have you talked with someone who's served in a tank? I mean in actual tank/tank combat, not served in the IDF driving a tank around rock throwing punks? I have, see. And when you are immobilized, you get your kiester OUT because you are no longer combat effective. An immobile tank is most often referred to as a 'target'.
Well, actually I know a few people who served in tanks in the Yom Kippur war.
Also, if you think all the IDF confronts is rock-throwing punks you are dead wrong.
I wouldn't wish that the tank drivers of the Desert storm would face what the Israelis are facing.
I wouldn't wish you would face what the Israeli soldiers are facing inside the territories.
Wow, ICQ huh! Guess the makers of Gator and WinZip have really added to to the overall knowledge of society! Dude, give the jingoism a rest. Israel is no more a scientific powerhouse than Ireland, which also is undergoing burgeoning tech industry changes.
Well, actually they have
Todays science is Biotechnology and Computers, not lightbulbs.
The 3 most profitable companies on earth are involved with software.
Microsoft, Oracle and another one I can't remember.
Also, you should know that the Vaccine for Diabetes is developed in Israel.
Actually, the technological institute of Israel, the "Technion", is comparable in it's level of studies to the ones at MIT.
Comparing is Israel to Ireland is hopeless.
How many high tech companies and R&D companies does Israel have?
Israel's main export is high tech - 36% of all exports in Israel are high-tech related.
In 2000 an Israeli high tech company was bought for $4.5 billion dollars, and considering it's age, it was a world record.
Israel has 3000 R&D companies, only second in amount to the UNITED STATES.
And you are comparing it to Ireland?
Something akin to inventing, say, the transistor, or the light bulb, or radio... instead of making AOL instant messenger or The Sims...
I said Modern times, not industrial times.
Israel didn't exist on the time of the radio or the transistor, or the light bulb.
On the other hand, israel did invent the vaccine for diabetes, the fastest cpu on earth, the smallest fastest cpu on earth, and a few other border-breaking inventions.
Wrong. If you think ICQ makes Israel the center of intellect for the Eastern Hemisphere you are on CRACK.
No, the fact that most High-tech VC companies agree that Israel is only second to the United States in the amount and quality of high tech companies does.
But I don't think you know much about high tech anyway.
Yeah, we know all about startups...it's the turndowns that get you.
No, we don't "all know" about start ups.
Please find me an equivalent to Israel in the amount of R&D companies and high tech companies, considering it's size.
You understand that Israel has more High tech companies than Canada or the UK, right?
Show me how that makes economic sense to you - do you honestly think there is an economic need for 5000 startup high-tech companies in Israel? How many are viable long term? This reminds me of arguing in 1986 with people who thought it was perfectly normal for Tokyo to have a higher property value than the continental United States. Don't let anything like common sense wade into your opinions here...
I should smack you for that comparison
Needless to say, I don't need to answer it.
IDC and Garage.com already did.
Read the following article:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Economy/idc.html
It was written by IDC Israel's researcher, Nisso Cohen.
I learn something new everyday. Even I didn't know it carried troops into battle.
