Is Israeli Merkava tank Obsolete??
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 чер 2024
- - Play War Thunder for FREE! Support my channel and get a premium aircraft, tank or ship and a three day account upgrade as a BONUS: gjn.link/RedEffectWarThunder
Also available for free on PlayStation®4 and Xbox One.
Patreon: / redeffect
Merkava is a pretty old tank, it appeared in the period when composite armors and new tank designs just started to take over, but it still retained old conventional steel armor, with addition to engine being moved to the front to provide cover, so it wasn't really the best tank of its time. But today the tank has been upgraded a lot and while the basis isn't the best, Israelis made sure they would pull the best out of it, and in this video we will find out if the tank can compete with its modern counterparts.
btvt.info/1inservice/merkava/m...
btvt.info/1inservice/30_merkav...
btvt.info/3attackdefensemobili...
below-the-turret-ring.blogspo...
topwar.ru/29321-konstruktivny...
topwar.ru/138769-tank-merkava...
topwar.ru/145915-proekt-merka...
topwar.ru/128317-vyzhivaemost...
topwar.ru/29511-konstruktivny... - Авто та транспорт
>>> Play War Thunder for FREE! Support my channel and get a premium aircraft, tank or ship and a three day account upgrade as a BONUS: gjn.link/RedEffectWarThunder
Also available for free on PlayStation®4 and Xbox One.
Is the arjun response vid back??
I think if it keeps the same design but uses modern armour it would be a lot better but as is i love it I like the door in the back and the ability to shoot mortars it's a true multi purpose tank... and the ifv version namir i think is great too
Just a question will you ever try war thunder
Ah yes play war thunder ground battles and want to break your pc in ground battles
Tim-Turner Jericho yes I agree it could be effective but I feel it needs new A design and new Armour along with its lower glacies needing to be more angled and the engine idea is no longer effective now a days due to heat and other shells going right through the engine no matter what but at the time it was a pretty good idea
It's good at stopping small hand thrown rocks.
Short Answer: no
Long Answer: when the arabs upgrade, Israel upgrades
The last time it went up against a couple hundred lebs, it got decimated.
And the Zionists went crying to the Americans for handouts and support (as per usual).
There won't be that many upgrades if both sides drown eachother in economic and financial warfare.
@@amusedobserver6134 you mean in last war in lebanon against hezzbolah? How many were lost? I thought most of the damage was from ATG hits against appartment blocks
Short answer: yes
Long answer: because there are a lot of zionist fan outta here
Joshua张志鸿 5 Merkavas were destroyed beyond repair in the second Lebanon war, out of which 2 mk4s were lost. One to a Kornet, the other to an IED. It is important to mention that back then they did not have trophy, yet 50% of ATGM hits did not even penetrate.
As a former tank commander I see some issues with this presentation as it is presented in a one dimensional way. Proper employment of an MBT (tactics) are what drives tank development. Rear armour as an example is thinner than frontal for obvious reasons. Side armour is also thinner as proper tactics will mitigate the enemy's ability to engage you from that profile. The engine being in front was seen as a concern as heat shimmer may obscure the sights however, this has not been a big problem from what I have read. The turret MG issue is overstated as it is not a main engagement concern for an MBT. The Israelis DO NOT like cupolas as their experience is that they can be ripped loose in the event of a hit on the turret and potentially decapitate the commander. The Merkava 4 is still a very effective MBT, well suited to it's environment but like any tank is very susceptible to destruction when employed in an urban, close quarter battle
Yeah, i have to agree with you. There are no way for a tank to be designed to have same value of armour on all sides without sacrificing a lot of mobility and fuel cost.
This is why tank is always have the thickest armour on the front and crew will always be taught to always front facing the enemy with their thickest part of armour while hiding their weaker ones.
No tanks are invincible and Merkava 4, though i hate the owner of it which is Israel, is a very solid tank. It performed the role well as a very armoured fighting vehicle.
This dude is biased towards Russian tanks, and is in no way an expert on the subject. He just gives his opinion on the issue, which is perfectly fine.
Finally someone that actually knows what is talking about, what tank were you using, just curious
@@JoaoSoares-rs6ec Leopard 1 (C1)
@@danmeehan1390 good tank
1:13 Except the grind.
Nissan U. -SUBW00FER- ay yes!.... a man of fellow suffering as well! :)))
Dead ass
Grinding research is bad enough but we have to silver. And train. Crew. Research and buy planes we will never play only because it is a prerequisite
Been playing for 5month still only 6.3 :(
@@Deccra feels bad man
Obsolete
In a World War: Yes
In the region: No
Zack Irahza if his task was to wipe the region before the powers arrived it would be fine
How is it even defined "in the world" ... Israel does not want to expand farther the regional powers are not getting upgrades and the nations with better tanks are not moving their tanks to the borders of Israel. So ... what is the point of the comparison then?
In a world war anything but nuclear weapons are obsolete anyway
depends on the role it plays in a world war
Regional is questionable as well when you start to look at allies of its neighbors and their equipment as well.
Israel has been involving itself in the affairs of its neighbors for quite a while, and it is starting to earn the ire of some of its neighbors' allies (Russia and China regarding Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc), who all have much better equipment than Israel. Hell, Iran alone has a formidable force of missiles, air, and armored units, along with their navy.
The last time I was that early,T-55 was still a modern tank.
The last time i was so early, the Mark I was still a modern tank
@@startingbark0356 mine is worse 🤣
The vietnamese has upgraded their T55's so much that they almost look like T90's. Actually had Israeli help, which did upgrade captured t55s.
@@shaider1982 I know that the Israeli have a lot of experience upgrading old soviet tanks like the T-72.
@@niki6853 not sure if they upgrade T72's though.
RedEffect: How many videos do you want?
Gaijin: Yes...
xaaxxaxaa))
Could you talk about other types of combat vehicles? Like the BTR series of APCs and the swedish IFV Stridsfordon 90?
Edit: Love your unbiased, informative content :)
I second that.
Hes channel only for MBTs look at description channel
@@ikill-98 For now, why not in future also other vehicles_
@@Leijona321 Yes I thought so too :D
I think the Merkava is an absolutely top top tier tank when you consider what it's opponents are.
Civillians.
Gotta watch out for these babies in the incubators, they are able to operate complex systems such as 9M133 Kornet ATGMs while shielded by the ERA-protected incubators.
There are four versions of the Merkava. Mark one and Mark two have been retired or rebuilt into heavy APCs. Mark three and four are still in commission. Uppgrading tanks is an Israeli specialty.
but putting the engine in the front is a very bad idea
just type on google ''destroyed Merkava iv" and you will find all the photos about the engine explode and Merkava iv got destroyed before by a kornet !
Egypt has m1 abrams and t-90 ms so yes Merkava is outdated and cant face the t 90 may be could face the abrams but not the t 90
and dude Merkava iv got destroyed before by A kornet ( cheap guided anti-tank missile )
@@Mohamed_Loay Does really matter. The concern is more about saving the crew.
@@henrylicious
We EgyptianS don't care about dying in the war field infact we prepare getting the shahada we r Muslims you know
The "Barak" their latest will enter service in 2023?
The engine is in the front because if the tanks gets hit in the front the engine dies but the crew survives
Not with modern APFSDS the engine is nothing to APFSDS, composite armor tho is something for APFSDS
Well as a former TC of a Merkava MK4 i can note some things ur maybe unaware of.
As well as the commander, the gunner AND loader also have the exact battle managment system and loader as excess to the TC’s independent camera.
There is no actual purpose for an L55 gun because it is much longer. These days tanks around the world and especially IDF’s armored brigade concentrate on urban combat. Therefore a longer gun will make something which is already hard - impossible. And remember these days the likelihood of a tank needing to shoot APFSDS round at another tank are , for IDF , pretty much zero.
Lastly about the .50 cal mounted on the main gun. It not part of the commander’s personnal MG, it is used to fire one round at a time, to snipe with.
Overall the tank is exactly wath the IDF needs to have to match his threats
What kind of threats? Childern throwing stones?
David used a stone.
@@waleedmukhtar2925 No, the ones with their RPGs that hide behind those children and hide their arsenal in schools or hospitals. And btw. those "children" will be full grown Arabs in a few years too.
@@waleedmukhtar2925 children with ak-47 and rpgs trained by jihadis shits
waleed mukhtar yeah sometimes i shot at babies no biggie
Good analysis!
To give feedback:
Rather than looking at the surface level statistics, it would add so much more depth if you give context as to why the tank was designed that way.
Instead of saying "X tank has bad side turret armor" or "Y tank has this feature but lacks another feature that most other tanks have", do give context for these design reasons. It would add so much more to the discussion if you take the extra mile and give context as to how the design fits with the user`s military doctrine, how it`s meant to be used, and how it could be improved in a given context.
Would be really importend in case of the gun.
Agree!
It was designed to project of independence that the Zionist state simply never had.
It had like 90% foreign components.
As time went by, they managed to get licenced production for some of these components.
The jevv tank is simply too slow for any real war.
The Zionist state rely mainly on the U.S. to either neutralize or destroy it's enemies.
Iraq, Lybia, Afghanistan, Syria and the US contained Iran and installed a military junta in Egypt.
The Merkava is just a glorified IFV at this point, comparing it to real tanks is unwise.
Amused Observer you clearly have no idea of tanks or what role the merkava tank fulfills
@@Tunnel_Rat69 He also does not know what role the anti semetic zionist realy play...
Meanwhile Merkerva in Wargame: Red Dragon... re-balancing everyone else..
Its hard to tell something is obsolete without a war to test it. I mean even old ass t55As are being used in syria right now. Not as battle tanks but mostly as artillery, fire suport or in hull down as defence bunkers.
Last time you mentioned the increased thermal signature of having the engine in the front, why not bring it up here again?
FirstDagger Not necessary, may be. Everything that are good about this tank are upgrade and upgrading a tank is at least cheaper than developing a whole new tank.
Why constantly repeat one thing over and over again, this video is not about all problems like that one was, no need to go too much into detail, thats why I told people to go and watch the video if they want to know more about the tanks problems
It still looks futuristic.
Israel also started with the 'Carmel project'. They want to reduce the number of tank crew members to 2 + AI in the future.
Nice, yes you can see how the focus changed in their armour zoning. The perceived main threat is from missile and top down attack. Which is what they mostly have to deal with. Kinetic munitions are for all combatants very hard to deal with and with current physical hard armour needs to be quite heavy to defeat those threats. This leads to vehicles that are very heavy and this affects the mobility side of the triangle. Nice vid and though short not bad. Thank you and keep them coming.
I love listening to arm chair general/mechanical engineer/engineer criticism
well i'm an aeronautical engineer haha but yea all tanks have their weaknesses. it's just impossible to make a perfect tank just like how knights don in plate still have gaps where they are vulnerable. it depends on how you use your armour that determines how much of that weakness you expose.
Rather see to it that my men are alive than dead.
Merkava is doing it job well, Making sure the crew has a higher survival rate.
for sure yes that's why the tank was designed that way but putting the engine in the front is a very bad idea
just type on google ''destroyed Merkava iv" and you will find all the photos about the engine explode and Merkava iv got destroyed before by a kornet !
Merkava is not optimised for tank survivability. The emphasis is on crew survivability. They IDF is willing to sacrifice an engine, a hull, an entire tank, if the crew can escape, unharmed.
very nice explain! hope to see more on cold war era tanks in the future
Can you talk about different varients of the leopard 2 such as leo 2pl , leo 2sg and other variants for export ?
Please
I BEG OF YOU
He got new moves in [cl-r], so I think he's still kicking
Thanks for the video!! :)
The world needs more tank designs or countries having their own designs along with cooperation with allies of course. I enjoy this series very much.
Interesting, appreciate your overview. On the remotely operated commander MG, I'd suggest looking up Nicholas Moran's video on M1 Abrams switchology. (You Tube - In the Chieftain's Hatch - sponsored by Gaijin's competitor) In that he explains why, as a Abrams tank commander he didn't use his installed remotely operated HMG.
As you mentioned back in the day the Merkava design put the engine forward as "additional" armor, the idea IIRC was that it would help protect the crew. That the tank would catch fire and burn from penetrating hits to the engine, I think, was expected. However, so long as the fighting/crew compartment wasn't penetrated they would have time to fight a bit more and then bail out sometime later if necessary. I say that while considering another of Mr Moran's videos where he get's into a Swedish S-tank and interviews a retired Swedish tank crewman. The S-tank has numerous fuel cans on the outside along the tracks. When asked about the danger of a fire, the Swede replied, "So? It's a tank."
He did kinda skim over a lot of things; for example, the turret structure is made of steel with modular composite packages on top, but the steel armor itself is arranged into several cells, creating additional spaced armor - which is also why the turret is such a massive pancake. The engine compartment is separated from the crew compartment by a steel plate, so shrapnel from engine hits won't damage the crew - and this also serves to stave off fire, which most tanks are equipped with fire retardants and fire suppression systems for.
The tank further capitalizes on tank doctrine of "never show your ass to the enemy" by installing a big armored door on the back, through which the crew can escape in an emergency, resupply can be easily carried out in prolonged engagements in a defensive situation, and some command versions and medical versions of the tanks strip out some of the ammo to make room for a stretcher (which can be useful when engaging as a group of several tanks, if one is hit critically).
For the FCS (fire control system), the vid was plain wrong - israeli tech is currently developing something called "Iron Vision", which will enable ALL CREW to have an AR unobstructed 360 degree view of their surroundings, thanks to an array of cameras on the tank.
The video also left out the tons of sensors and radars on the tank, special anti-helicopter and anti-building ammo, the internal 60mm mortar for troop support and counter fire (because a mortar could hit a rooftop that an MG could not) and various other aspects.
Finally, a big part about the merkava was forgotten - it's tracks.
The tank is by large, meant to fit all environs of israel - but it was specifically designed to work the difficult basalt hills and mountain ridges of the golan heights.
Where another tank would shred it's tracks, it can keep trucking on.
The merkava is a defensive tank that is designed to hold a position no matter what, and damn the engine if we must - and they often would fight in tank dugouts that massive armored CAT D9 tractors would scoop out for them.
Can't help but feel the vid is half-assed.
Takes a look at Abrams that was built with unbalanced focus on fighting tanks which only increased with modifications and whose recent updates focused solely on fighting infantry. Then takes a look at Merkava that was designed to primarily fight said local assymetrical conflicts.
Nope, I'd even say it's the other way around:D
TheArklyte Merkava was originally designed to fight other tanks, primarily in defensive scenarios. Sort of an extreme chieftain in a way, with a VERY low profile turret (on the mk1)
When Merkava was first designed Israel was severely outgunned and outnumbered in the tank department by any of the major Arab states. It was meant to fight other tanks in a linear fashion under a controlled retreat doctrine. The Mk.1 has almost no turret side armor. All its armor is frontal. The Mk.3 baz was the first of the Merkavas to be designed with urban warfare in mind and its armor was transplanted to earlier models to make them more viable in MOUT. The Mk.4 was designed to again bring the Merkava on par with modern tanks in the tank-on-tank field combat arena. It was notably horrible for MOUT when it first appeared due to the lack of a hatch for the loader. In MOUT, having the loader outside the tank helping to defend it is crucial. As it was first designed, the Mk.4 forced the already severely overworked commander the task of defending the tank from multiple potential avenues of attack while his loader is stuck doing nothing 99.999999% of the time. Eventually they realized this was damned stupid and gave the loader his own hatch. So why delete the hatch in the beginning? Because the designers imagined the biggest threat for the tank to be coming from artillery, top-attack munitions, and aircraft. They never intended for the tank to fight in urban terrain because they already designed the Namer based on the same hull to do exactly that.
New to channel, like the detail breakdown of armor, firepower, mobility.
Merkava is the perfect tank for Israel but not for other countries.
True, merkavas were designed specially for Israel needs.
@The Killer ever heard of active protection system?
@The Killer Only the back and the sides can be easily penetrated. Even Red Effect already mentioned that.
@The Killer LOL
that's so wrong
@The Killer I love how people still think trophy is unproven and a concept
It has a 95%+ success rate
You had a few mistakes with the armor on the hull there are 2 layers of unknown steel but if I had to guess I might say these are Israeli versions of high hardened rolled armor and rolled homogeneous and the lower part you showed a picture of a penetration in 2006 it wasn’t a mark4 its either a mk3 or mk2
I read the title and immediately thought, "How much is that gonna cost the US taxpayers?"
lol
Nothing actually, the engine is either US or German in origin. No other US parts, ammo, main gun, electrics all Israeli, it will cost the US to buy the Israeli Trophy for their tanks and BTW the c. $3.8 B. annual grant has to be spent on the US to the tune of about $12 B p.a. so net gain around $8 B. for the US.
@@HowardMessias yup, everyone are brainlets when it comes to the great military-industrial complex money laundering "trade".
@@HowardMessias considering we GIVE Israel about 50 Billion a year we should get it for free 😎
@@billhanna2148 WHAT? Israel has recieved more than say, Egypt or the years, but the two are comparable. Why don't you guys complain about Egypt? After all, Israel has a high tech economy and maintains geo-political order, all Egypt does is keep the canal open.
I think it is important to mention the military doctrine that the vehicle in question is part of. This would thus highlight the 'strengths' & 'weaknesses' as for one military doctrine the weakness may be significant. Whereas for another it may be minimal. Just a thought on future videos 👍
It is well suited for the environment it has to deal with. A replacement was being developed but the budget was redirected for missile defense systems. I think any future replacements will be unmanned.
which tank's side hull armor can withstand APFSDS?
Sabot on the flank is most effective. Reactive armour would help
None
Maybe that flying sausage prototype has a chance of them glancing off...
However, I doubt it for modern APFSDS...
none, but then again, Trophy is only the 1st system in the family.
Iron Fist has proven capable of handling APFSDS and creating new gen that features both pluses and more is never out of the question.
It went obsolete in 2006
actually can you make a video on some of the most advance modern tanks today in service?? i watched a bunch of your videos but i really duno which tank is good and which one is bad lol
The weak hull is not as big of a problem as you describe it because the Merkava is a defensive tank and is usually in a hull down position.
Israel has been busy updating the Merkava , so while the chariot ( translation of Merkava to English) may SEEM old , the upgrades are brand spanking new - designed for crew and infantry squad survivability .I live not far from Yad La Shiryon , The Armored Corps Memorial Site and Museum at Latrun central Israel , and I can tell you first hand , the Merkava is an awesome bit of kit , so much so, that there is an APC modelled on " the old girl "
You didn't mention crew training makes a world of difference
Always.
Training & discipline
Warthunder ad: Warthunder has “Realistic Physics”
Traction and friction Physics: am I a joke to you?
Correction. merkava IV does not have gen 2 thermal imager for the gunner and commander but rather Gen 1 same as M1a2.
Dude with trophy protection merkava its superior than t 90
That's a very broad and uneducated conclusion... Trophy means automatic win?
@@Gongolongo its not automatic but people with abrahams and merkava tanks with trophy protection systeam are superior protected plus have better equipment and training .
@@Gongolongo no win is automatic it takes several steps
@@Gongolongo know your enemy know yourself Know your worst fears and your enemy weak spots and you win
T90 is cheaper though.
Next video "Are tanks obsolete in modern battlefields due to how advance spgs, rocket launchers and aircrafts have become?"
JC 117 simple answer - no - you will always need a system that can combine mobility, protection and firepower no matter how modern the systems that are used are
It will be just 10 minutes of "Nnnoooooooooo..."
With the advent of composite armor ,era, and now with active protection systems tanks are more viable than they were.
no. MBT are far from being obsolete (it's quite the opposite in fact) and here's few reason:
-MBT got an bigger margin of mass (so, you can fit more upgrade on them than on other platform. and the more extra-stuff an platform can carry, the easyer and the cheaper it is to upgrade it )
-MBTs are quite cheap compared to air-units (such as planes and copters)
-MBTs, such as all ground units, can make occupation (an crucial task for when invading an area or waging an asymetrical warfare)
-aside from MBTs, not a lot of units can survive a hit from even an 60 years old RPG (so, against modern weapons, they are the only thing that can stay alive more than few seconds).
-modern MBTs carry good NRBC protection and can endure quite impressive shockwave (see the australian tests on old centurions vs nuke, and soviet test on T-55 vs nuke) wich is an tiny extra + (meaning, in case of something really shitty going on, MBTs are gonna be one of the last kind of units able to stay somewhat operationnal)
an good exemple is the "life" (if we can call it that way) of the T-54/55 platform: from T-54-OBR1947 (in 1947) to the modernised T-55M of the 80s ---> this platform managed to stay more or less relevant for almost 40 years. (and even today, in some situation, this machine can still sometimes proove usefull ).
it is true that in the 1960s, a lot of people though tanks where going to become obsolete (ERA, composite, NERA armor did not existed yet, and APS wheren't a thing yet, while ATGM and HEAT where already a thing, making the armor of this era quite obsolete (leading to MBTs being very light and poorly armored, such as AMX30 and leopard 1) but then...big improvment began in the defensive sector, and fat tanks made their coming back with more protection than ever.
The infantry are obsolete. Put everyone in tanks!
Can you do videos on ifv and apc as well
At the moment I heard Merkava is an old tank I understood that this guy have nothing to share except advertisement from Gadjin.... T-72 according to this guy is pretty new one.... Ura russian patriot ...
Can you make video about MBT in ASEAN?
What, Harimau, again?
Nope Harimau is MMWT lol
I mean VT-4,Leopard 2RI,Leopard 2SG,PT-91M,T-90S/SK, and T-80U.
Okay. I thought it's about Harimau again. I would love to see ASEAN MBTs tho, especially the two Leopards.
Last I was this early... I was still in Stalingrad waiting for the Luftwaffe to drop off some goddamn food.
Here have a crate of condoms.
@@mikec8086 you say that as if he'll ever use them
@@ynyrjohnson3861 destruction 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Loool
Do you have a video on how much the L 55 improves upon the L 44 Main gun
I really like its look. Looks very modern
Merkava: The frontal armor is excellent against HEAT projectile...
American destroyer equipped with a railgun turret: *I can penetrate over 5 merkavas in a row with one shot*
Merkava equipped with a laser *i can erase 5 US destroyers in a row*
Railguns are used currently only by the Navy. It's an entirely new weapon system used by 1 or 2 countries in the entire world and they have no interest to use it against a regional power
@@PhysicsViolator Not if papa America doesn't flip the bill.
Hi Red!
Just wanted to say a few things because your assessment of Mk 4 protection is mostly wrong.
First thing is the most important. Mk 4 doesn't use NERA or ERA (except perhaps in the forwardmost section of the front hull) but SLERA. This means that potentially for the rest of the UFP and all around the turret the KE protection effectiveness can be higher than the physical thickness (unlike NERA) and/or lighter than NERA of the same volume.
For thickness, the UFP is divided in two sections, one that hinges back for quick access to the engine and another one that can only be dismounted with a crane, for full access to the engine compartment. For the first section i estimated a LOS thickness of 643mm. For comparison, that is thicker than the UFP on T-90 (which includes its backplate). Behind that SLERA module there is about 2-3 meters of air (engine compartment) and afterwards the RHA steel plate that divides the crew compartment and acts like a backplate. In other words, the engine compartment works like a huge chunk of spaced armor. The other section is much closer to the crew compartment (less empty space to act as spaced armor) but is potentially much thicker than the section that can hinge. Some people have estimated that this section can be up to a meter thick in terms of LOS. How that physical thickness translates to effectiveness is unknown but can be estimated.
About the LFP it's true that it is a weak spot. But it's also the area less likely to be hit in a frontal engagement (even more if Merkava 4 is hull down as it should when engaging tanks). However when compared to other unarmored LFPs such as the ones from Challenger series or Leclercs, Merkava 4 LFP is much better protected as behind it there is an armored fuel tank (diesel) and then the engine compartment which acts as spaced armor (2-3 or more meters of spaced armor are A LOT).
The hull sides are also protected by thick armor modules which might me either ERA of SLERA (most likely IMO). In both cases, they provide better protection than NERA of the same weight or volume. If that is "bad" when compared to other tanks i don´t know...
Now for the turret, i´ve estimated that both the side module and the front module from a 30 degree angle maintain the same LOS thickness of around 650-700mm (in front of the empty triangular channel). And both side and front modules are SLERA most likely of the same composition.
On the other hand, the protection for the crew compartment on the turret doesn't diminish as you go higher in the module, the image at 1:26 is misleading and is not representative of the turret layout of Mk. 4 as everyone can see in the other picture at 1:51. The horizontal LOS thickness of the armor in the turret covering the crew compartment is stable at 650-700mm.
In terms of thickness, Merk 4 has the thickest turret side armor in the world by a big margin. In combat, the side has withstood Kornet hits. Meaning that the frontal 180 degrees of the turret have 1500+mm of HEAT protection, which is unmatched by any other MBT. In terms of KE protection its a little bit more difficult to estimate, but to do so you have only to check the APFSDS used by neighboring countries. In that sense, the best MBT Merkava 4 might come up against is the egyptian Abrams, which fires KEW-A2 (tungsten version of M829A2) and two years ago Egypt just bough KEW-A4 (perhaps tungsten M829A3?). In any case, none of those rounds penetrate more than 700mm RHA, so it would be very rational that at 30 degrees from the frontal, Merkava turret should have an equivalence of 700mm. However, since the physical thickness at 30 degrees is the same as in the sides, and for all we know the armor composition is the same, it is possible and plausible that the Merkava 4 turret sides also reach 700 mm vs KE! In terms of raw numbers, 700 vs KE might not seem very high in today's standards, but what is important here is the coverage of the armor which is the best among today's MBTs as it has no weak spots over the frontal 180 degrees in the turret.
Needless to say that straight from the front, the armor module gets a lot thicker, potentially up to 1000mm (although i don´t believe that the effectiveness goes much higher than what does at the frontal 30 degrees).
Red if you want to address some of this issues just PM me i have no problem for providing pictures and sources.
@@komradearti9935 i thought as you before making my estimations. But certainly its true that the turret has the same thickness at 30 degrees than what it has laterally. If the composition of the front and side modules is the same then the only logical assumption to make is that they have equal protection qualities. At least that's what we can check for sure based on combat record is that both the front module from about 30 deg and the side module withstood the same ATGMGs (Kornets). So in terms of CE protection, should be represented as 1500mm across the front and sides. So far i haven't seen any indication that the side and front turret modules have different composition. Again keep in mind that we are talking about SLERA which is much more efficient in terms of weight and volume than NERA.
For the side protection effectively that can be defeated by a Kornet (so does the side of every single MBT). So it's more difficult to estimate the protection effectiveness.
No, regardless if the armor can be penetrated or not there are plenty of incentives for mounting an APS (if an ATGM doesn´t penetrate it doesn't mean that there is no damage to the tank).
@@komradearti9935 There is also the sides of the hull, which are less protected than the sides of the turret, I'd note. In regards for the turret sides' KE protection, assuming SLERA is being used, it wouldn't really be that much of a surprise as things go. Keeping in mind, that SLERA does offer more protection than NERA or NxRA vs CE, and might be close enough to standard ERA in weight performance the IDF decided to go with such for the sides as well, which would offer better multi-hit capability than ERA panels, e.g. they'd survive multiple RPGs to the side of the turret instead of just one. This having the effect of also meaning they'd have beefy KE protection. It's not an impossibility by any means.
@@komradearti9935 lebanon war, 2006
@@komradearti9935 Merk 4 turret armor modules are 4, two covering the frontal 60 degrees and two covering the straight sides. About the side modules we know 2 things, that they are SLERA ("much" higher threat defeat capability than NERA at equal volume and/or weight in exchange for worse multi hit capability, that´s why they are designed to be replaced quickly if they are damaged) and that they withstood Kornets in Lebanon, meaning at least 1500mm RHA effectiveness vs HEAT. We also know that the front modules from 30 degrees are about as thick as the side modules and they also withstood Kornets meaning that they also perform as 1500mm RHA as minimum vs CE.
We don't have confirmation that the front modules are SLERA nor that they have the same composition as the side ones, they could well be a different SLERA design optimized to protect also against KE. If that is the case, then we could have the same CE protection across the frontal 180 degrees of the turret but differing KE protection in the frontal 60 degrees. This might be easily what's going on, but we don't have solid supporting evidence. The other most likely scenario is that all turret modules use the same composition, hence, the have the same performance vs KE and CE per physical millimeter across the frontal 180 degrees (this is what i proposed). The figure of "700mm KE" at the very least for the frontal 60 degrees is based on the best APFSDS the Merk 4 may be shot with (KEW-A2 and KEW-A4 fired from Egyptian Abrams).
@@komradearti9935 and no, trophy is mounted on top of existing armor.
The Merkava is an old tank? If you take into consideration most of its modern counterparts are also quite old vehicles. The Leopard two entered service n 1979 and Abram was first produced in1978 for evaluating. Even the French LeClair is almost 30 years old. You also have to realise that this may not be the best tank in the world. But it is the best tank for Israel
It’s probably he most flexible and versatile MBT out there. The mk4 is among the best tanks in the world.
For the environment it it is operated in , it is a good tank.
Short Answer: No.
Here we are three years later and IDF announced Merkava Barak with artificial intelligence computing, 360° cameras, next gen Trophy APS, HUD display for crew members adopted from F35 pilot helmet (the F35 pilot helmet was designed in Israel by Elbit systems).
How many will be made? The MK4 with the trophy is in the single digits after a decade. Israel doesn't have the money anymore due to the Gaza war destroying its economy.
What do you mean by AI computing? Do you mean AI software?
A few important things you didn't bring up, part of the reason the merkava has the design is does is partly due to the terrain, this has much better gun depression angles that there most of the enemies.
The heck? At -8.5 degrees it's basically no different from the -6 on T-62 and T-72. Abrams (which Egypt operates), Chieftain and Challenger (which Jordan operates) have -10.
In any case, Israeli tank doctrine is to avoid elevating the front of the hull relative to the enemy because the lower glacis is basically tofu. Additionally, the tank is very front-heavy due to the engine placement. The gun bearing is located roughly over where the CG is in the tank, so a Merkava would topple forward and down a berm before it could take a hull-down position to bring its gun to bear, which is why they fight on the level nearly all the time. You can see this in actual footage of the tanks in action. The way Merkavas are meant to take advantage of terrain is to hide behind it, not crest it like an Abrams would. The Israelis took great pains to armor up the tank's turret ring and keep the surface of the hull level so that the gun can be depressed to the same angle all around for this purpose.
Last time i was this early
merkava was still a good tank
Then you didnt watch the vid :)
So you are this early today?
Nemanja Lackovic pepperidge farm remembers it being hyped as the best...
Idk about the merkava but clickbaits are never going to be obsolete
In the last picture what you see is a tank hit by another tank in training. There was no penetration.
The ammunition was training ammunition.
Eventually with the use of unmanned weapon platforms, MBTs which just be very big expensive targets.
I wonder how good the protective barrels are. its a pretty important factor for survivability, would be cool to dig up some info on it , maybe a test or something,.
Last time I was this early, Yugoslavia was still a thing.
Where is RedEffect from?
Obsolete means literally off production so... no its not out of production
No it doesn't you vegetable
Obsolete doesn't mean out of production, obsolete means that it's outperformed to the point where it's almost useless.
@@maxwell120L55 go to the dictionary
dude u sound like a guye from arma ive recently played with
because your the only two persons who playing this anymore(just kidding great game)
Merkava was designed as an urban warfare tank first, anti tank tank second
Which explains why they put the engine in the front instead of the rear
@@WiliiamNoTell They put the engine on the front to protect the crew.
No internal motar?
The ammo bins are actually an issue. Arjun MBT also uses this same system, canisterised ammo bin. But in testing it was found that direct hit would set off atleast 1 shell, which would kill the crew, even if the other ammo didn't catch fire.
Those are there in case of shrapnel hit which would light the round on fire. When you have no bins it burns everyone inside straight up, with bins some time is required for the round to burn out of bin (maybe half a minute or less) giving crew some time to escape the tank before it bursts into flames. It is there purely for crew survival
@@komradearti9935 yes a direct hit will blast it either way. But when 1 projectile in the bin catches fire it will take some time for it to ignite other projectiles which gives you extra time to escape.
@@komradearti9935 yes after some time, it wont be instant
@@komradearti9935 Yes but you have to take into consideration that once one starts burning the other ones will take time to heat up and start burning themselves. Therefore if 1 charge has a hole in the bin where small amount of fire is coming out it wont kill anyone inside or instantly ignite rest of the rounds, that is why each one of them is separated in their own bins. When fire is coming out of one it slowly heats up other projectiles around it that after short time either explode or catch fire themselves, thus it is not instant so it gives some time for crew to bail out. Sure fire suppression system might do its job but why risk it, bail out and if it is safe return to the tank if the fire has been put out.
This is one of my favourite channels but I think this upload was a bit weak on detail. For example, an explanation of how this mbt’s specs stand up in the context of the likely adversaries.
information like that is very contextual, and can easily be outdated, if you have all the facts just compare them
He's still guessing half of the time
that's the problem with not having a security clearance to view every country's classified documents on their modern equipment and tanks
It's enemy's are mostly atgm and rpg
Thanks for the video! Keep up the good work! 🇷🇺
The reason the engine is in the front is a military doctrine one. The engine acts as armor for the crew and results in the loss of the engine and disabling of the tank. That is fine for the IDF as they don’t have much manpower to call upon so they value the crew highly, so high that they rather have the tank immobilized or lost but have a higher chance of saving the crew. That is why the tank has a small crew compartment in the back and a big escape hatch in the rear.
Please make videos about btr vehicles, bmp ,m113.apcs
What about the back door.
Hezb alah destroy it from there with old AT like malotka and other russan ATM
Every tank is weak from the back though, not really a merk specific thing.
that is generally every tanks' weakness
merkava vs arjun let's go
Tank fight of the century.
Anyone still wanna bet on Arjun? Anyone, my good fellas?
a one sided battle if i may say so"
Then we all know who will be triumphant in the end.
Arjun! 🏹
Jai Bharat! Jai Hind! 👳♂️🇮🇳
@The Killer arjun is worse then markava
Speaking like he had access to the blueprints even though they are top secret and classified.
What is the song in the background?
It isnt pretty good it is the best tank in the world and it comes from one that worked on in the merkava and the abram and I learn about them as an hobby also israel is currently working on the merkava mark 5
according to you everything is obselete apart from russian stuff, russian t64 - still very effective, just throw in some ERA at the front and you have an m1a1 beater.
Would you say most modern tanks (save for a few newer ones) are obsolete/dated because they were made last century to fight wars that didn’t occur?
0:24 any idea of what the chains have for purpose?
Commandant Cousteau protection against RPGs. Works like cage armour
@@peterpetersen6905 ok thanks
3:55 They never will, because they use tanks in cities against guerrillas, shorter barrel better there. Maybe upgrade some of their arsenal, not all.
Using tanks in cities is always a bad idea, just drop some c4 on its roof and its finished
@@antimatter4733 Ideally, yes, but that very much depends on your objectives.
@jame Gumb this is one of the main reasons on why a lot of tanks including the abrams use shorter L44 gun. They just don’t really engage other tanks they are more focused on counter insurgency In tightly populated areas and upgrading to the L55 would just make it harder to drive around in a city environment with the longer barrel. And some of the tanks they do engage are older T55s and T62s and the rarer T-72 with no ERA. So the L44 would be good enough for them.
@@UDMH Except they use bigger charges and modified gun in their tank rounds to match German L/44 guns that can take less pressure. So that is a thing as well. Not sure if Merkava uses the German design or the US design. Still, long range probably would prefer the L/55, so how much long range engagements does either engage in? If cities are more often fought in (Iraq, Kuwait, Gaza) it makes sense to have a more compact platform no pointy thing sticking out a long way.
@@BenyKarachun who tf is talking about video games. If you think your imaginary jew tank can survive 50kg of C4 detonated directly on top of it You're absolutely insane, that amount of C4 will rip apart any tank currently produced and kill the entire crew. At 20kg it will most likely still kill multiple crew members and damage the tank beyond repair as has been proven multiple times with ieds even at range, so unless your argument is that 20kgs is too heavy for anyone to lift I'm afraid you're completely wrong
Better than any piece of shit Russian tank that is fielded in any meaningful numbers.
Smartest YT comment
Least salty jew
On point with the recommendations i see youtube 😅
what is the fuel consumption per 100 km for a merkava 4?
Obsolete or not. The real question is, will any survive Gaza ???
No, urban warfare is basically a death sentence for any tanks
@@khoapham4670 They have already lost a lot of them. I wonder how many they have left ?
@@MAZEMIND single digit mk4 and a few dozen mk2 and mk3
@@MAZEMINDCan you provide photographic evidence? I'm genuinely curious because I've only seen one MK4 burning earlier in the war
They keep Israel safe from Egypt, Syria , ect. , and palestinian terorists..So yeah they are good for what they are meant to be.
4:09 it looks like it's on sale
There is a video of the Trophy APS countering an APFSDS round. Now if this will happen in combat conditions is yet to be seen.
@@komradearti9935 ua-cam.com/video/62jzAupr044/v-deo.html
It didn't fully intercept it but it did detect it and made it lose some of it penetrating power as a result.
Propaganda trying to steal the title of "Worst Tank Ever" from Arjun!!!
Unsubbed XD hahahahaha
That arjun tank outperformed and outgunned russian T90 tanks in exercise. During tests,arjun survived 5 direct point blank APFSDS hits fired by an Israeli L44 gun armed with M338 Rounds. This man even don't know that the problems he was talking about was identified in 2015 and since then Arjun has been upgraded with numerous features. Arjuns Kanchan armour can sustain direct APFSDS hits. Equipped with Tonbo Imaging see through armour vision system,LEADS150 aps, and a new DU APFSDS round with penetration capability of 700-780 mm RHA at 2.3 km,arjun has become deadlier than one can imagine.
@@arpansow3870 dude if you can't take a joke go home and log off the internet. your tank is a meme!
And i'd rather be in a T-90M or T-80UK any day over Arjun.
@@arpansow3870 "withstand with from apfsds", what apfsds there are many and many have diffrent penatration, and dont go and said the same shit that arjun survided a shot from T 72 from point blank, what did they use as the round in the test?, 3BM42,3BM43 or DM23 which is it?
@@wonkagaming8750 it was a svinets round...Not only T72,but T90 rounds were also fired at it. Five times the trials were given,means a total of 25 trials. Arjun passed all of them with flying colours.
@@wonkagaming8750 also,I stated that Israeli M338 rounds were also fired. It was being considered for Arjun but the OFB chairman got caught red handed while dealing with IWI and thus IWI was put on sanction list.
As always the anti-Semitism is running rampant in the comment section lol
So does the zionism. Both are equally disgusting. Facts are facts and israel is illegitimate, but there shouldnt be calling for deaths of anyone
Mareos42 I agree, I am an Israeli and sometimes I am ashamed to see such display on the internet, from both parties.
@@maiagalm9956 Nice to see reasonable people
Mareos42 Likewise! I hope the situation will change, but right now we have a virus to deal with.
@@maiagalm9956 you are right dealing with COVID19 is now our top priority
also we need to remember the tank was made with focus on survivability.
Could you upload new episodes of tank arena please?
Communist propaganda
Boom
Again... the Merkava 4M is NOT desgined to be tank v tank combat, think of it like the modern infantry tank, like the churchill from WW2 the tank was very good at supporting inantry and bponced a lot of hand held AT or AT guns (exept the long 88) but when it come to tank v tank hit suffers, the israeli do know what is thier problem now and know how to deal with it (I already can see you "only good againts rocks" comments below) but no, the Merkava fights againts RPGs IEDs and ATGMs. Unlike other countries the israeli army fights againts unconventional enemy and he knows how to deal with it.
@@militaryanalysis5028 As one who actually drove the Merkava I think I know a thing or two about it
@@militaryanalysis5028 Oof, then let me explain to you. This tank is built for ISRAEL, wich means, it does not desgined to fight other tanks because the main enemy of israel is HAMAS and Hizbella, wich don't have any tanks (Hizbella have a little tho).
@@militaryanalysis5028 First of all, the merkava from 1970s is way different than the merkava in service now, and i didn't said its designed to fight infantry, what i'm trying to say that its not your typical MBT. Its not designed to fight mostly tanks ( he has APFSDS, so what ? He had this to have the capability to fight tanks, but it's not an Abrams, or s T-90, its not used as an armored spearhead, but more of a supporting role.
I see this tank as the M2A1 or M2A4 Slammer :)
Can you talk more about Chinese MBT ztz-99a and a2.