Military Review

Tank "Merkava". The concept, which knocked forty years

254
In 1979, the Israel Defense Forces adopted the newest main tank “Merkava” of the Mk 1 modification. In the future, the Israeli defense industry has developed several of the same name combat vehicles, which differed from the very first with increased technical and combat characteristics. With time tank chassis became the basis for other equipment. The operation of Merkava tanks and vehicles based on them continues to this day and is unlikely to stop in the foreseeable future. What is the secret of such successes in Israeli tank building?


In the September issue of the German magazine Strategie und Technik for 2009, the article 30 Jahre Kampfpanzer Merkava was published (“30 years of the Merkava tank”). Its author, Rolf Hilmes, was an associate professor at the Bundeswehr Academy at that time and was in charge of the “Combat Complex of the Country” theme. Having solid experience in the study and operation of armored combat vehicles, the Academy Associate Professor reviewed the main projects of the Israeli tank construction and made some conclusions that can be relevant now - almost 10 years after the publication of his article.


Museum tank "Merkava" Mk 1. Photo of Wikimedia Commons


Evaluating the Merkava program as a whole, R. Hilmes first of all wrote that the stages of its development perfectly illustrate the growth rates of the defense industry of Israel over several decades. In the early eighties, the tank model Mk 1 did not meet the level of world leaders, but in the next decade the machine Mk 3 went into the series, quite capable of arguing with leading foreign models. A few years later, the release of the Merkava of the Mk 4 type began, as a result of which superiority was noted in certain areas.

The authors of the Merkava projects have always tried to use the most advanced technologies, but this, according to a German expert, was not the main goal. The main task of the projects was still to obtain high combat and operational qualities. In addition, the design took into account the experience of recent armed conflicts. Finally, the most important task was to ensure the survival of the crew in the most severe conditions.

At the stage of determining technical requirements for the future main tank, the IDF experts put vitality at the forefront. In the development of all components of the project should receive maximum resistance to various threats and the safety of the crew. At the same time - due to the presence of some specific factors - it was possible to sacrifice the deterioration of some characteristics. For example, there were no severe restrictions on the mass, which was due to the peculiarities of the Israeli landscape and the size of the country.


"Merkava" second version. Photo AOI / flickr.com/photos/idfonline


The finished appearance of a promising tank, determined by the mid-seventies, had a number of characteristic features that distinguished it from other combat vehicles of a later time. In the future, similar design features were refined and improved, but it was not planned to abandon them. As a result, the Merkava tanks of the Mk 1 and Mk 4 models, despite the most serious differences, are very similar to each other.

The main features of the Israeli tanks are well known. For example, the 30 Jahre Kampfpanzer Merkava article outlined them as follows. First of all, R. Hilmes noted that a large number of nodes and assemblies, performing their basic functions, is also used as an additional protection of habitable compartments. First of all, this was manifested in the placement of the power plant in front of the crew. In addition, such an arrangement left the aft compartment free, in which it was possible to provide a manhole for emergency leaving the tank or for evacuating the tank crews from a wrecked car. In the stern there are potentially dangerous flammable liquids: fuel and oil.

The tank received a pointed frontal armor of the tower with reliable ballistic protection. The side elements of the turret are made in the form of armored boxes in which various property or machine gun ammunition can be transported. At the stern of the tower, during one of the upgrades, an additional basket was placed, increasing the tank's resistance to cumulative ammunition. It was supplemented with a special screen in the form of hanging chains with weights. Ammunition guns located in the fighting compartment of the case, in its stern. Shells are stored in fireproof containers.


The third modification of the tank. Photo AOI / flickr.com/photos/idfonline


The original concept of the main tank, built around maximum survivability and crew protection, was embodied in the metal in 1974 year. Over the next few years, the Merkava Mk 1 prototype machines underwent various tests and showed their real capabilities in all conditions. As required, some modifications of the design were carried out aimed at obtaining the desired characteristics. After completing the tests, the tank was recommended for adoption. His service officially began in 1979.

Already in 1983, a new version of the tank appeared - the Mk 2. Taking into account the experience of operating serial tanks of the first model and the results of the collisions during the Lebanese 1982 war, the existing structure was improved. Overhead of existing armor installed overhead panels. The tower was equipped with external baskets with anti-cumulative screens. The standard 60-mm mortar was removed inside the crew compartment, reducing the risks for the crew.

In 1990, the serial production of the Mk 3 MBT Merkava started. First of all, it differed from its predecessors 120-mm smooth-bore gun and engine of greater power. However, the most interesting in this project was hinged protection. As before, it was proposed to install special modules of appropriate shapes and sizes over our own armor.

Tank "Merkava". The concept, which knocked forty years
"Merkava" Mk 4 - the newest and most perfect representative of the family. Photo AOI / flickr.com/photos/idfonline


It is curious that the Israeli industry still does not reveal the secrets of the modules of the third Merkava. Officially, it was only reported that such devices have a body in the form of an armored box, inside of which there is a classified content. Apparently, we are talking about some kind of combined multilayer barrier based on steel and other materials. Subsequently, the mounted modules were refined several times with an increase in the basic characteristics.

An important innovation of the project Mk 3 has become a warning system for laser irradiation. The LWS-2 product included three wide-angle sensors that fixed the laser beam from the enemy's equipment and a control panel. With the help of sensors, the Merkava crew could timely learn about the impending attack of the enemy and take action. The warning system significantly reduced the likelihood of successful shelling from tank guns or using guided missiles.

In the 2004, the Merkava Mk 4 tank was developed, taking into account the experience of using all three previous machines. The result of the development and improvement of existing ideas was the most serious reinforcement of the reservation, and in addition, a noticeable change in the appearance of the tank. The next version of mounted booking modules, providing improved protection against major threats, was markedly different from its predecessors. Strengthening the protection led to the abandonment of the driver's own hatch, because it weakened the upper front part of the hull and also completely blocked the front parts of the tower. Also had to use the updated hatches of other crew members and move some elements of the fire control system. From a certain time, the Mk 4 tanks are equipped with the Meil ​​Ruach active protection complex.


The evolution of the tank "Merkva", you can compare the change in the exterior of equipment with the development of protective equipment. Figure Btvt.info


A new increase in survivability entailed an increase in combat mass and led to the need to replace the power plant. The 70-ton tank had to be equipped with the new HP 1500 engine. As before, the engine and transmission were placed in the front of the case, serving as additional protection for the frontal projection. Provided for the use of new 120-mm gun with enhanced performance. The means of storage and supply of ammunition were also refined. As before, measures were introduced to reduce the risks for the crew.

As you can see, over the past decades, the basic concept of the Israeli MBT Merkava has not undergone any noticeable changes. The main goal of projects has always been to ensure the highest possible level of protection against all relevant threats. The tank model Mk 1 had protection against tank shells, then it was supplemented with anti-cumulative means, and by now in this area, allegedly, outstanding results have been obtained.

Like many other tanks, the Israeli Merkava became the basis for several samples of military equipment for other purposes. Remarkable is the fact that the basic concept of the basic project allowed us to build new cars without major alterations to the tank chassis. However, not all such samples of combat and auxiliary equipment could reach mass production.


Heavy BTR "Timer" during joint exercises in the United States. Photo of US Army / army.mil


Crew protection requirements led to the placement of the power plant in the front of the hull with the release of the stern. Such an arrangement is not traditional for tanks, but may be useful in projects for other equipment. So, in the mid-eighties, the Soltam company developed the Sholef self-propelled artillery. She carried a 155-mm rifled gun in a swing turret. The latter was placed on the modified seat of the roof of a standard tank corps. Balancing the finished sample was acceptable. Thus, on the basis of an unusual tank chassis, it was possible to create an ACS of its usual appearance.

A sufficiently large volume in the center and rear of the hull, which is released when the fighting compartment is removed, is also used in the project of the Heavy armored personnel carrier Namer. In his case, the chassis of the tank "Merkava" Mk 4 is complemented by a new roof, and in the free volume are placed seats for nine paratroopers. It is alleged that in terms of protection of the crew and the landing, such an armored personnel carrier corresponds to the base MBT. Thus, the developments on the survivability of tanks could be applied in the interests of the infantry.

In the free compartment, covered with armor and engine, you can also install equipment to work with damaged armored vehicles. This possibility was used in the project of the Nemmera armored repair and recovery vehicle. At the site of the former fighting compartment, a winch and a crane with a swinging boom are installed. Also on board such a BREM there are tools for servicing or repairing combat vehicles in a field setting. In the past, it was pointed out that the maximum unification of the tank chassis of the old models will allow to rebuild the withdrawn tanks of the old models into repair and evacuation vehicles.


Armored repair and recovery vehicle "Nemmera" on the chassis "Merkavy". Photo by Iweapons.com


Since the creation of the first tank line "Merkava" more than 40 years passed. During this time, the Israeli industry managed to create four versions of the tank and several other machines based on them. As a result, the army received thousands of units of combat and auxiliary equipment, increasing its combat capability accordingly. Having certain problems of one kind or another, tanks and other IDF vehicles, in general, show themselves well on the battlefield. The achievement of such results is facilitated by the constant refinement of technology, taking into account the constantly expanding operating experience and combat use.

It is impossible not to notice that, despite all the changes and improvements, the basic concept of the Merkava tank has not changed since the development of the very first project. The idea of ​​ensuring maximum protection of habitable compartments, by the standards of that time, was successfully solved already in the first projects of the family. In the future, it was possible to significantly increase the level of protection with the help of various integrated and mounted tools. At the same time, the charge for such an increase in characteristics turned out to be acceptable and did not have a serious impact on other parameters.

Also a curious consequence of the applied concept and methods of its implementation was the possibility of using the chassis in new projects without a radical processing of its design. Not all such projects were able to bring to the series, but the army still received new combat and auxiliary vehicles, unified with the tanks. This unification gave immediately two positive results: it simplified the joint operation of different samples, and also brought their protection to the same level.

Since its inception, the Israeli main battle tanks, the Merkava, have faced the most serious threats, taking damage or sustaining casualties. Nevertheless, the designers tank builders took into account the experience of collisions with the enemy and offered new ideas for improving armored vehicles. As a result, four OBT models came into service, the characteristics of which gradually grew and reached a fairly high level. The “Merkava” family remains in service for almost 40 years and becomes the basis for a new technology for one purpose or another. The Israel Defense Forces are not going to abandon such equipment and are probably already working on the next version of the tank. Such an attitude on the part of the main and only customer can be considered almost the best argument in favor of the original concept from the mid-seventies.

Based on:
http://israeli-weapons.com/
http://globalsecurity.org/
http://defense-update.com/
http://armor.kiev.ua/
http://army-guide.com/
http://btvt.info/1inservice/30_merkava.htm
Author:
254 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. apro
    apro 30 March 2018 05: 51
    +15
    Kolesnitsa. A kind of tank. Jews did for themselves and under their conditions. How cars behave on other TVDs is not clear.
    But heavy tank-based armored personnel carriers are a practical thing.
    1. Romulus
      Romulus 30 March 2018 06: 22
      +7
      Quote: apro
      Chariot. A kind of tank. Jews did for themselves and under their conditions

      Namely .. crew protection and guaranteed superiority over the T72 - the main tank among the Arabs included in the anti-Israeli coalition, because the Abrams do not shine for them.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 30 March 2018 08: 02
        +20
        Quote: Romulus
        Arabs have a tank in the anti-Israeli coalition, because the Abrams do not shine on them.

        Nonsense.
        1. Abrashi in service with Egypt, the Saudis, Iraq. Jordan has M60 and Challenger 1.
        2. There has long been no anti-Israeli Arab coalition. The State Department is working. The Saudis, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt are friends of the United States (by the way, precisely because democracy has not wondered there somehow). Syria is no more. Bouzit is mainly Iran and its Lebanese friends. Accordingly, Israel has recently relied heavily on missile defense. And he does not buy, but does it himself, which is characteristic.
        1. Romulus
          Romulus 30 March 2018 08: 14
          +1
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Nonsense.

          Tank "Merkava". A forty-year-old concept ...
          Try to consider the concept in this vein) hi
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 30 March 2018 08: 18
            +2
            The tank plant in Helwan (Egypt) began to build 34 years ago.
            1. Romulus
              Romulus 30 March 2018 08: 29
              +1
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              The tank plant in Helwan (Egypt) began to build 34 years ago.

              I will not argue - I don’t know .. But by that time it was no longer A. Nasser. and A. Sadat and as our press wrote then - camp David’s conspiracy)
          2. Gray brother
            Gray brother 30 March 2018 13: 25
            +8
            Quote: Romulus
            Tank "Merkava". A forty-year-old concept ...

            Yes, perhaps more, such a concept was still in the Reichswehr.
            1. svp67
              svp67 30 March 2018 15: 17
              +6
              Quote: Gray Brother
              Yes, perhaps more, such a concept was still in the Reichswehr.

              Which they “licked” with the British ... tank PMV Mk A “Whippet” (read as “Whippet”, literally translated from English - “Greyhound”) - a British light tank of the times of the First World War with machine gun weapons
        2. mvg
          mvg 30 March 2018 14: 22
          +6
          They do not have a full production cycle. Engine German diesel gun under license. But the tank is almost the best in the world and beautiful.
      2. Kars
        Kars 30 March 2018 13: 10
        +10
        A long search for photos and information on the merkas led me to the conclusion that the merkava is a mediocre tank, with a very interesting exterior.
        The positive thing is that the MK4 became the first commercially available Kaz tank.
        The relative successes of its use do not relate to the quality of the tank itself, but to the complex of all Israeli armed forces.
        1. svp67
          svp67 30 March 2018 15: 25
          +12
          Quote: Kars
          A long search for photos and information on the merkas led me to the conclusion that the merkava is a mediocre tank, with a very interesting exterior.

          I do not agree ... the tank is “imprisoned” for a specific theater of war for a specific army, and for this it is EXCELLENT. And the exterior ... where did he go before that ...

          And these are not bad ...


          Quote: Kars
          The positive thing is that the MK4 became the first commercially available Kaz tank.
          You saw the particular, not understanding the main thing. THE WHOLE CONCEPT of this tank is aimed at saving the life of the crew. The Israelis, through the loss of their first wars with the Arabs, came to the most correct decision, through the understanding that the tank is just a CONSUMABLE TOOL OF WAR, the main thing is people. Well trained and motivated fighters. And save them in a meat grinder of war, that’s the main concept around which this tank was made
          Quote: Kars

          The relative successes of its use do not relate to the quality of the tank itself, but to the complex of all Israeli armed forces.
          Without a doubt, in any other army, where he will be "alien", he will face big losses, mainly due to the fact that he is very heavy, and therefore has limitations on operational maneuverability.
          And I’m not very sorry that our designers did not have the ability and time to make the “Armata” with the front engine ....
          1. Kars
            Kars 30 March 2018 17: 01
            +7
            I don’t disagree. Tank as a tank with regard to crew survival. It is difficult to make such a conclusion because of the large evacuation hatch.

            If in any other army there will be the same relationship with aviation. Artillery and sappers, then there will be exactly the same level of losses. Well, plus of course you need the same enemy.
            1. svp67
              svp67 30 March 2018 17: 25
              +5
              Quote: Kars
              I don’t disagree. Tank as a tank with regard to crew survival. It is difficult to make such a conclusion because of the large evacuation hatch.

              You didn’t understand everything again ... it’s not only a safer escape route, but also that it’s easier, and most importantly safer to reload the ammunition, that the forward engine is not only a physical barrier for any armor-piercing projectile, it’s centimeters of life.
              Quote: Kars
              If in any other army there will be the same relationship with aviation. Artillery and sappers, then there will be exactly the same level of losses. Well, plus of course you need the same enemy.

              As the Americans showed during the "Desert Storm"
              1. Kars
                Kars 30 March 2018 18: 22
                +7
                Refueling ammunition under enemy fire? I do not believe that the Israelites would
                We’ve practiced this. And as for the engine in front, well, but there’s almost no armor there, it can be clearly seen in the photo of the disassembled and repaired tanks. I think even the BMP will be able to penetrate the forehead. It’s the same if the helicopter works out of the gun. And the whole car got up and the crew needed to their two run away. only from where the Palestinians have a helicopter, or BMP.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 30 March 2018 18: 48
                  +2
                  Quote: Kars
                  Refueling ammunition under enemy fire? I don’t believe that the Israelis would practice this.
                  There are no documentary photos, but why do you think that they should neglect such an opportunity, especially being on the defensive, behind any shelter or in the trench, when only the tower is visible ...

                  They carry their "bodyguards" and, if necessary, drop under fire ...
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 30 March 2018 19: 18
                    +6
                    As you say. Here you already say that you can pick up under certain conditions. And I don’t like it anymore. It will be so interesting if they load the ammunition and the mortar starts firing.
                    I agree that the BC is faster and easier to load. But they will still get out of the fire. That would be if they had a cassette charge from the combat support vehicle. And so anyway, one at a time with an investment in fireproof pencil cases.
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 30 March 2018 19: 32
                      +2
                      Quote: Kars
                      and it will be interesting if they load the ammunition and the mortar begins to fire.

                      This is a war, everything happens on it.
                      Quote: Kars
                      I agree that it’s faster than BC and easier to load

                      The main thing is SAFETY.
                      Quote: Kars
                      and so anyway one at a time with an investment in fireproof pencil cases.

                      Well, they have more than 26 there ...
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 30 March 2018 19: 58
                        +4
                        I don’t see safety, except due to the reduction in loading time.
                        But the fact that it’s much easier, yes, we don’t need to load our crew through the upper hatches and use the entire crew. Then one will slowly load it, without much effort.
                2. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh 30 March 2018 22: 34
                  +11
                  The forehead of Merkava’s hull is much weaker than Abrams (the most protected from the frontal projection), but the enemy’s shell will not reach the fighting compartment, even after breaking through the frontal ceramic-metal panel (DZ is built into it), the steel under it and the motor. In front of the fighting compartment are a few more vertical barriers that are not visible from the outside.
                  In the oncoming battle of the tank against the tank, Merkava-4 is not the most powerful tank in terms of security.
                  But the tower on top and the tower tower on the sides and back of the Merkava-4 are much better protected than any modern competitor. What is important in the war against ATGMs diving from above, in urban battles and counter-guerrilla operations.
              2. IS-80_RVGK2
                IS-80_RVGK2 April 1 2018 14: 37
                +2
                And what engines do they make of armor steel, or is there composite armor in general? BOPS will fly through your engine and will not notice. Such a layout is bad just because of the weakening of the frontal armor of the tank hull, among other disadvantages of such a layout. In general, each type of engine placement has its own drawbacks. And for the tank, in my opinion, just the standard placement in the rear of the hull is currently the best.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 April 1 2018 14: 43
                  +3
                  Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                  And what engines do they make of armor steel, or is there composite armor in general? BOPS will fly through your engine and will not notice.

                  Do not make me laugh. She will notice as she will notice. BPS is strong with its core, which is made of the most refractory and heaviest material, and it works at the moment of breaking through "compression", after overcoming the barrier there is a wave of "stretching", the multiplicity of such "waves" leads to self-destruction of the core, this is the principle of diversity booking and multi-layer armor. The use of a combination of “combined obstruction” - engine - combined obstruction, as is done in the same “Merkava”, will reliably protect against any existing kinetic projectile
                  1. IS-80_RVGK2
                    IS-80_RVGK2 April 1 2018 16: 22
                    +1
                    And where does such firm confidence come from?
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 April 1 2018 16: 27
                      +3
                      Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                      And where does such firm confidence come from?

                      One cannot be sure of anything in a war, and this is all based on calculations, tests and analysis of the combat use of the same Merkava
                      1. IS-80_RVGK2
                        IS-80_RVGK2 April 1 2018 17: 39
                        +1
                        Well, so where are the facts, where is the specifics?
          2. Conserp
            Conserp 30 March 2018 22: 00
            +2
            Quote: svp67
            And I’m not very sorry that our designers did not have the ability and time to make the “Armata” with the front engine ....

            Ours did the right thing, that they did not do this stupidity.

            Why this is stupid is explained in any textbook on BTT theory.
            1. svp67
              svp67 30 March 2018 22: 04
              +4
              Quote: Conserp
              Why this is stupid is explained in any textbook on BTT theory.

              Sorry, but I would like specifics, what exactly is said in "any textbook on BTT" in this matter. You can thesis.
              Theory and practice say that the closer the crew is placed to the center of mass of the tank, and the tank, in turn, is to the geometric center of the combat vehicle, the more comfortable it is for the crew to work, especially the gunner.
              I believe that in this layout of the T-14, the crew is not at the right point. It is funny towards the bow, with respect to the geometric center, but the center of mass is shifted to the stern .... With the front location of the MTO, this would not be.
              1. Conserp
                Conserp 31 March 2018 17: 44
                +6
                There is no such a compact and light engine that you can put it in your nose and at the same time maintain the height of the body, the overview of the mechanical drive, the alignment of the machine and the alignment of the BO.

                The first and main complaint against the Merkava is a gross violation of the basic principle of rational distribution of the mass of armor, which says that height increase tank gives greatest parasitic mass growth while increasing the affected projection. This is a consequence of banal geometry.

                On the Merkava, 20 tons of useless armor, which, with a normal layout and the same mass, could go to protect the crew and so on. Or it could be exchanged for mobility, mobility, cost and other nishtyaki.

                Further. At Merkava, the tower is located above the rear of the 4th skating rink, that is, it is strongly shifted back relative to the supporting surface (65% of the length). At the same time, a “shed” is located above the last 6th roller, and the center of mass of the machine is strongly shifted forward. Because of what the front and needed a characteristic reinforced track roller. Those. in fact, the tower is pushed back even more than it seems.

                And they did it all for the sake of the engine in the nose.

                Using the TBMP T-15 as an example, one can also see that it is not possible to reconcile a normal MBT.

                Quote: svp67
                Theory and practice say that the closer the crew is placed to the center of mass of the tank, and the tank, in turn, is to the geometric center of the combat vehicle, the more comfortable it is for the crew to work, especially the gunner.

                The main thing there is not the location of the crew as such, but the location of weapons and surveillance devices. Previously, this was the essence of the same thing, but in “Armata” the crew did not directly serve them.

                For the crew, a reduction in pitching is also good, but not so important. And given that the "Armata" - an active suspension, it is completely negligible. But for the gun stabilizer, this is always important, so the tower is exactly in the center.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 31 March 2018 18: 41
                  +4
                  Quote: Conserp
                  that increasing the height of the tank gives the greatest parasitic mass growth

                  What has already happened with the T-14 ...
                  Quote: Conserp
                  The main thing there is not the location of the crew as such, but the location of weapons and surveillance devices.

                  Again, no, in this situation it is the position of the gunner relative to the centers that play a major role in his ability to monitor, detect and quickly aim for a long time and effectively. There is less motion sickness, and stabilization of the seat has not yet been invented.
                  Quote: Conserp
                  But for the gun stabilizer, this is always important, so the tower is exactly in the center.

                  STV is not motion sick.
                  1. Conserp
                    Conserp April 1 2018 00: 19
                    +2
                    Quote: svp67
                    STV is not motion sick.

                    Yeah, with the perfect balance of the tower and drives with many times better than existing speed characteristics.
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 April 1 2018 06: 27
                      0
                      Quote: Conserp
                      Yeah, with the perfect balance of the tower and drives with many times better than existing speed characteristics

                      The STV of our tanks is quite "tightly stitched" and perfectly perform their tasks
                      1. Conserp
                        Conserp April 1 2018 09: 48
                        +1
                        This does not mean that they provide 99% of hits at a speed of 50 km / h over bumps
                  2. Bad_santa
                    Bad_santa April 1 2018 03: 51
                    0
                    An X-shaped engine is installed on Armata, therefore the height of the platform has increased
                    1. Conserp
                      Conserp April 1 2018 09: 54
                      +4
                      The case did not get higher due to the engine.
                      The height of the old B-92 is 950 mm, the height of the new X-specimen is 820 mm.

                      The real reasons are mine protection, roof protection, crew comfort and increased clearance (and it is now variable).
          3. Setrac
            Setrac 31 March 2018 00: 04
            +2
            Quote: svp67
            And I’m not very sorry that our designers did not have the ability and time to make the “Armata” with the front engine ....

            The T-15 is equipped with a combat module, like the one on the Sprut-SD op-la, the tank with the front engine is ready.
            1. svp67
              svp67 31 March 2018 04: 19
              +2
              Quote: Setrac
              The T-15 is equipped with a combat module, like the one on the Sprut-SD op-la, the tank with the front engine is ready.

              On the "Octopus" module with an inhabited tower, but you must put an uninhabited .... Otherwise, the gunner will be generally in the very ... aft and security will decrease. But it would be good to use it on self-propelled guns, but not done according to the classical scheme
      3. nafanal
        nafanal April 3 2018 21: 49
        +1
        Shoveled a lot of literature and did not find guaranteed superiority in almost anything. The only excellent fire system. The crew inside is afraid of smoking. IR sensors will work instantly. The running part is a spring suspension instead of the torsion bars. However, they flew. To recall at least Operation Galilee. For then only the Americans saved Israel from defeat.
    2. san4es
      san4es 30 March 2018 09: 09
      +1
      Quote: apro
      ... heavy tank-based armored personnel carriers are a practical thing.

      hi
      1. merkava-2bet
        merkava-2bet 31 March 2018 00: 34
        +5
        Akhzarit and Puma and Namer were mixed in a heap, and all this is passed off as Ahzarit, stupid people.
    3. merkava-2bet
      merkava-2bet 31 March 2018 01: 33
      +5
      That is, in your opinion, you need to make only the right tanks, and what country they have, in Russia or the USA. Tank Abrams was generally called an anti-tank self-propelled gun for the European theater of operations and that he fights in the desert even though crack and that he is a bad tank, and in addition, he is a champion in military operations in various theaters of military clashes since 1991 and continues to fight, smoothly modernizing. And it doesn’t matter whether you like it or not. As a result, he encountered modern tanks in battle, yes, in 1991, and who faced the T-90 tank from modern tanks. You ask, but Merkava encountered modern tanks, and T-62 tanks in 1982, that I didn’t collide with T-72 tanks, it doesn’t matter, but the result would be the same . And I’m not saying this in order to lower the quality of the USSR / Russia tanks, but the tanks that were exported were of worse quality than those we had at home, and it cost the buyer dearly. As for reliability, Soviet tanks were not up to par, mine former colonel reserve and he served on the Tyrants (T-55,62) Magahs (6,7) and Merkavot (1,2,3), so in terms of reliability there were definitely Merkava tanks, especially Merkava-3, and there wasn’t any cheap patriotism , tankers are harsh people and do not like glamor since the life of him and his soldiers is at stake.
  2. The comment was deleted.
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 30 March 2018 07: 24
      +25
      Quote: magirus401
      What tedious articles from the "writer" of this, the title of the article is interesting, but you start to read ....., immediately visits and vomiting and diarrhea

      So, write something either yourself. And we will see what you get. To reproach someone else's mind, a lot is not necessary. No.
      1. magirus401
        magirus401 31 March 2018 13: 57
        0
        Well, not all the "writers" who are bothered by something, there are just readers, because your opus without a reader is just toilet paper, by the way, you also have to go to ballet
    2. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 30 March 2018 07: 27
      +12
      Quote: magirus401
      vomiting and diarrhea

      Why put them here right away? wink
      1. magirus401
        magirus401 31 March 2018 14: 15
        0
        This is a natural reaction of the body to the writings of this "writer", if these reactions visit me, I can’t write that I am drawn to sing and dance
    3. Pan_hrabio
      Pan_hrabio 30 March 2018 17: 15
      +3
      Here I support you. There are several authors on the VO that I recognize by style. And if the article is unreadable, unstructured, smelling of bloating the number of characters and glued from different pieces with a repetition of the same, then alas - this is Cyril.

      Themes he often raises interesting, but the study is lame.
      1. AUL
        AUL 30 March 2018 20: 50
        +3
        I agree, the article looks glued from several different sources (which in itself is understandable), constant repetitions of the same thing several times. It would be necessary for the author to process the material more thoroughly. And the information in the article is really interesting!
      2. zyablik.olga
        zyablik.olga 31 March 2018 00: 25
        +4
        Quote: noviczok
        Themes he often raises interesting, but the study is lame.

        But criticism must be constructive, no one is allowed to insult others.
        1. magirus401
          magirus401 31 March 2018 14: 23
          0
          Where are the insults here? If I wrote my opinion about this article that is not flattering for the writer, it is an insult, then indicate the swear words in my opinion, or like in America, have you been blamed and forgot about the evidence?
        2. Pan_hrabio
          Pan_hrabio 31 March 2018 14: 30
          +1
          By no means did I want to insult Cyril and apologize if that sounded so. I have nothing to him as a person, but as an author on VO he is responsible for a significant number of articles on this portal. In my commentary, I specifically wrote that I did not like in his articles, so as not to be a dumbbell, and I did not refuse these words.

          Although I must admit that against the background of the dominance of empty cheers-patriotic articles, Kirill Ryabov is a very good author.
          1. magirus401
            magirus401 31 March 2018 14: 35
            +3
            Also sent a warning for the insult? Well that's ok here.
            1. Pan_hrabio
              Pan_hrabio 31 March 2018 14: 36
              +2
              No, but I won’t be surprised if this is ahead. I described my position above.
  3. realist
    realist 30 March 2018 07: 41
    +6
    probably a good tank merkava, but 70 tons! in Europe there are no bridges of such carrying capacity, and the soil has a lower bearing capacity than in the homeland of the Jews. and all other qualities are good only in comparison with the relatively old modifications of the T-72, no one knows how he behaves in battles with an equal enemy. The device is not bad but for solving a narrow range of tasks under certain conditions.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 30 March 2018 07: 55
      +3
      Quote: realist
      nobody knows with an equal opponent

      T-90 or what?
      1. realist
        realist 30 March 2018 18: 37
        0
        I’m a military builder, I have to ask tankers. Yes, even with Abrash or Leclerc, what else does the adversary have?
    2. cariperpaint
      cariperpaint 30 March 2018 08: 32
      +8
      there is no such term equal to equal. it is from fairy tales. already wrote many times that all these comparisons are for children. Well, let's take for example two companies of chariots. the tanks are the same. one company is attacking the other is running from an ambush. who will win?
      1. realist
        realist 30 March 2018 18: 57
        +2
        the one who earlier detects the enemy and opens targeted fire will win, and this is already an electrician and optics, and he seems to become more perfect over the years. Well, of course, the gun should provide high range and accuracy, and it is desirable that the crew knew how to use all this, and not just the gas pedal and air conditioning control :)
        I'm certainly not a tanker, if I’m wrong, I apologize ....
        1. cariperpaint
          cariperpaint 30 March 2018 19: 54
          +2
          competent ambush just gives such an advantage. in normal calculation, an ambush company will smash another in minutes. too many variables for phrases like who will beat Merkava or there is Abrash or 90.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 31 March 2018 00: 09
            +2
            Quote: cariperpaint
            competent ambush just gives such an advantage

            A tank with an engine is more likely to escape from the fire. In addition, during an ambush, as a rule, fire is conducted from the sides and the front location of the engine will not affect in any way.
        2. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 30 March 2018 21: 03
          +1
          Quote: realist
          the one who earlier detects the enemy and opens targeted fire will win

          The winner is the one with drones with helpers in front of the tanks.
          1. Conserp
            Conserp 31 March 2018 01: 36
            +2
            The one who has military air defense, capable of knocking down enemy drones without straining from a distance twice the maximum range of the helper, will win.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 31 March 2018 08: 01
              +2
              The one who won in the previous stages will win.
              1. Ideology.
              2. Economy.
              3. Diplomacy, coalition building.
              4. Diplomacy, the creation of a sanctions regime.
              5. Intelligence. Purchase of generals, ministers and governors / tribal leaders.
              -- YOU ARE HERE --
              6. Control of the ether, the destruction of centralized air defense systems and communications.
              7. Control over the sky, the destruction of the Air Force.
              8. The work of attack aircraft / KR on strategic facilities and the remaining air defense, including military.
              9. The work of attack aircraft on armored vehicles.
              10. Ground operation.
              11 ...
              12 ...
              N ...
          2. realist
            realist 31 March 2018 11: 49
            0
            or a reconnaissance plane will hang over the war zone and merge data directly onto the tactical computers of ground units. but this is again the use of a complex of forces and means — which develop over time, and tankers could not even imagine such in 1941–45.
    3. venik
      venik 30 March 2018 09: 04
      +5
      Quote: realist
      but 70 tons! in Europe there are no bridges of such carrying capacity

      =======
      Where have you seen bridges in Israel (and the surrounding area!)? There are also rivers that cannot be wade on foot (at least for most of the year), in my opinion, there are none!
      And the rest - Your Truth !!! Because they are not exported!
      1. BAI
        BAI 30 March 2018 09: 55
        +2
        There are also rivers that cannot be wade on foot (at least for most of the year), in my opinion, there are none!

        Jordan River. Depth up to 2 m.
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 30 March 2018 10: 48
        +8
        Quote: venik
        Where have you seen bridges in Israel (and the surrounding area!)?

        Almost anywhere.
        Quote: venik
        There are also rivers that cannot be wade on foot (at least for most of the year), in my opinion, there are none!

        An expert on Israel who has never been there is immediately visible.
      3. karish
        karish 30 March 2018 13: 48
        +8
        Quote: venik
        Where have you seen bridges in Israel (and the surrounding area!)?

        Unexpected question.
        the impression is that the bridges are only over the rivers.
        But what about transport interchanges, bridges over the gorges? Or is it no longer bridges?

      4. brigadier
        brigadier 31 March 2018 08: 30
        +2
        Israel has bridges and complex road junctions at several levels.
        Abrams and leorads of approximately the same weight as the merkava. In winter, northern Israel has dirt and snow. All talk about the fact that the merkava is imprisoned for Israel is complete nonsense, repeated as a mantra by "experts." And nobody buys merkava because no one sells it.
    4. Engineer
      Engineer 30 March 2018 09: 09
      +6
      the same tales told about IS-7, but not only about bridges, but also about railway platforms, although even a quick assessment shows that there was no such problem.
      1. Conserp
        Conserp 30 March 2018 14: 06
        +2
        At the same time, one Abrams brought down with his weight a reinforced concrete bridge in Iraq.

        And it is full of photo evidence that the Abrams regularly bring down their weight, not just bridges, but simply roads.
        1. Conserp
          Conserp 30 March 2018 19: 08
          +1
          Examples from Iraq



    5. Maki Avellevich
      Maki Avellevich 31 March 2018 08: 04
      +4
      Quote: realist
      probably a good tank merkava, but 70 tons! in Europe there are no bridges of such carrying capacity, and the soil has a lower bearing capacity than in the homeland of the Jews. and all other qualities are good only in comparison with the relatively old modifications of the T-72, no one knows how he behaves in battles with an equal enemy. The device is not bad but for solving a narrow range of tasks under certain conditions.


      we won’t reach Europe. wink
  4. tchoni
    tchoni 30 March 2018 08: 13
    +7
    Quote: realist
    probably a good tank merkava, but 70 tons! in Europe there are no bridges of such carrying capacity, and the soil has a lower bearing capacity than in the homeland of the Jews. and all other qualities are good only in comparison with the relatively old modifications of the T-72, no one knows how he behaves in battles with an equal enemy. The device is not bad but for solving a narrow range of tasks under certain conditions.

    Come on you! Any bridge easily holds a couple of forty-kilot freeliners in cargo ... Except for the very ancient, still Soviet construction and very local significance in especially bearish corners
    As for the enemy, then, in theory, the tank does not fight with the tank
    1. realist
      realist 30 March 2018 18: 47
      0
      in general, it always refers to the mass of a single vehicle, it is clear that on the bridge there may be a column of loaded KAMAZ trucks with trailers (with Dagestan numbers and double overload), but the norm takes the weight of one car 42 tons.
      if the Jews build their bridges according to their own standards, then there are no issues with traffic on them, I’m talking about Russian and European norms and bridges.
      objectively comparing it always makes sense that it was built at the same time for the same price, if we compare the VAZ 2101 with the VAZ 2107, then the latter was designed later and cost one and a half times more, and in all cases, early developments will almost always be inferior to the later ones, progress however (( excluding obvious developers mistakes).
  5. san4es
    san4es 30 March 2018 08: 55
    +3
    "Merkava Mk.4" The main battle tank of Israel

    Aug 2017 year hi
  6. Nix1986
    Nix1986 30 March 2018 09: 07
    +9
    This tank was created for certain terrain conditions and conditions of use, in addition, it seems to me that the experience of using British technology played a significant role, the crew’s security being paramount. Experience has shown that this concept works. Based on this, my personal opinion is that the tank was a success. If you leave out of the box its use on other theater.
    1. uskrabut
      uskrabut 30 March 2018 16: 09
      +3
      Quote: Nix1986
      If you leave out of the box its use on other theater.

      The Jews are definitely not planning a throw to the English Channel, but everything that’s possible to get next to Merkava’s help
  7. Engineer
    Engineer 30 March 2018 09: 07
    +7
    Why publish odes to a tank that has been debated a thousand times over and over again? They would talk about the concept of two crews in the tank, which turned out to be complete stupidity, but was transformed into another concept and presented as a brilliant solution. They would talk about the problems of firing from a tank with a front engine. They would say that such an arrangement of the engine makes the probability of damage high, which makes the tank an immovable target on the battlefield. But do not think at all, I like this tank much more than Armata, because Merkava has a clear development concept, and Armata is an attempt to make a universal platform, and everything universal is always averaged. Some sizes of which are due to unification with a heavy BMP with a front engine, while a tank with a rear. But in general I am silent about the gun - back in the mid-80s, the general of the tank academy in 5 minutes proved to the Kharkiv design council the advantage of a 152mm gun over 125 and 130mm chosen by them. Just do not tell that it is easy to put it on Armata - this is another machine, the shoulder strap of the tower and the tower itself + violation of the alignment of the tank.
    1. Usher
      Usher 30 March 2018 13: 55
      +1
      And then the epaulette?
      1. realist
        realist 30 March 2018 18: 49
        0
        the weight of the tower is different, and the load from the shot, it is necessary to strengthen with increasing caliber.
        1. K.A.S.
          K.A.S. 30 March 2018 21: 42
          0
          and you are sure that the epaulette, automatic. centering is not designed for 152, but for now have set 125? to draw conclusions you need to look at technical documentation
          152 mm it can already shoot nuclear dans. it turns out each tank can use special ammunition.
          But how does this compare with the contracts and what will be the consequences ?.
  8. Conserp
    Conserp 30 March 2018 10: 03
    +5
    The "secret content" of the protection modules is clearly visible in the photographs of the fired tanks - a banal multilayer.

    For a tank weighing 65 tons, the Merkava is badly armored. Just mentally add 15 tons of additional armor to the T-90, it will become obvious.

    For the Israeli theater of operations and local tasks, a normal small-scale specific combat vehicle, but as an MBT, is nothing.
    1. karish
      karish 30 March 2018 13: 51
      +5
      Quote: Conserp
      For a tank weighing 65 tons, the Merkava is badly armored. Just mentally add 15 tons of additional armor to the T-90, it will become obvious.
      For the Israeli theater of operations and local tasks, a normal small-scale specific combat vehicle, but as an MBT, is nothing.

      Armata
      Combat weight - up to 55 t

      Crew - 3 person

      Ground clearance - 500 mm

      Caliber and brand of gun - 125 mm 2A82-1M

      Engine power - 1500 l. with.

      Highway speed - up to 75 km / h

      Target detection range - over 5000 m

      Target hit range - 7000-8000 m

      Cruising range - over 500 km

      Resistance of armor - over 900 mm

      For the first time, the T-14 tank on the Armata platform was demonstrated at the Victory Parade on May 9, 2015.


      1. Conserp
        Conserp 30 March 2018 14: 07
        +4
        What did you want to say?

        // looked at the comments - a typical lover of ukronatsists and pouring mud on the "rashka"
  9. rytik32
    rytik32 30 March 2018 14: 58
    +8
    Merkava - the tank is very specific. Infantry will go. In a battle with modern tanks, he does not shine.
    The motor in front is an outright puncture in the layout. Because of this, a large volume, weight and weak armor. In fact, only by the presence of KAZ it favorably stands out among other tanks. No armor against kinetic shells, 200 millimeters in strength, judging by the photo. Against the kuma, the screens on the tower, VLD and sides. But the cornet still breaks through these screens (penetration of more than 1000 mm, the merkava obviously does not have that much). NLD is not even protected by screens. Hope only for KAZ. It’s foolish to consider the engine and other details as protection against modern ammunition.
    Why am I only writing about defense?
    About patency and range have already been written.
    Cannon and SLA at the level of modern tanks.
    1. Pan_hrabio
      Pan_hrabio 30 March 2018 17: 19
      0
      If it’s not difficult for you, can you say in a nutshell why the front engine increases volume and weight while reducing weight? The question is without subtext, it’s just interesting, I see no reason for this with my logic.
      1. rytik32
        rytik32 30 March 2018 18: 10
        +6
        There are a number of reasons.
        1. Reservation. It is necessary to protect the forehead as well. beat there and ass, because there is a crew. In the classic layout they protect the forehead and it covers the crew.
        2. Height. The tower should be higher. Otherwise, you cannot shoot with a large slope, because tower further from the front end.
        3. A long and sloping forehead. Irrationally. Better thick but straight forehead and thin roof. Again to ensure the tower is tilted down.
        4. The big tower. Under the aft niche they have landing parties or shells. Western tanks have a motor under a niche. This increases the length of the carrots.
        1. Pan_hrabio
          Pan_hrabio 30 March 2018 18: 36
          0
          Understood thanks!
        2. merkava-2bet
          merkava-2bet 31 March 2018 05: 38
          +6
          All that you wrote bullshit and delitant, you contradict yourself.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 30 March 2018 22: 43
      +4
      "no armor against kinetic shells" ///

      Do you mean OBPS, the so-called "crowbar"? Against these types of shells, ceramics work best, not metal. She, breaking herself into a crumbly, extinguishes the kinetic energy of "scrap". Therefore, the Merkava-3 and 4 hinged panels are doing just fine with OBPSs. Of course, the panel breaks when you hit the "crowbar". Disposable protection.
      But it is unlikely that several shells will be planted in one place.
      1. rytik32
        rytik32 April 2 2018 09: 30
        0
        There is no ceramics in the merkava curtain panels. Plexiglass there. Proof https://www.popmech.ru/weapon/10527-vstrechnaya-a
        taka-aktivnaya-tankovaya-bronya /
        And it works only on a coup. The caliber projectile will not even notice such an obstacle.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh April 3 2018 10: 40
          +2
          Panels - removable, bolted. Depending on the theater of operations, the composite panel may have a different structure. Where there is less danger of encounters with tanks, they put panels sharpened on Kumm. Rockets, where enemy tanks - panels sharpened on OBPS.
          The panels began to be installed precisely after they were convinced in Lebanon in 1982 that DZ works poorly against crowbars. And they were against crowbars, and not against kumma.
    3. Maki Avellevich
      Maki Avellevich 31 March 2018 08: 11
      +3
      Quote: rytik32
      No armor against kinetic shells, 200 millimeters in strength, judging by the photo.


      beware of Gd
  10. _Jack_
    _Jack_ 30 March 2018 15: 04
    0
    Mk 4 in the 2004 year was adopted, 14 years have passed, when Mk 5 will be?
    1. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 30 March 2018 15: 19
      +4
      Quote: _Jack_
      Mk 4 in the 2004 year was adopted, 14 years have passed, when Mk 5 will be?

      Will not. Mk-4 and Mk-3 will be modernized and will last until 2040. So far, IDF sees no prospects for replacing this heavy platform.
      1. _Jack_
        _Jack_ 30 March 2018 16: 14
        0
        and at first every 5-6 years they did a new option, that they reached perfection or was there nobody to fight with him?
        1. Shahno
          Shahno 30 March 2018 16: 20
          +4
          Why have reached. The missile forces at the moment and the VKS care ... We are not planning a large ground operation in the near future (Iran will definitely not need this). But there will be tasks and we modify the mercavas. Experienced developments are there for MK5, but why rush ... against whom, against hezbola, 4 x is enough for them. What for people to ruin, hezbole and Hamas and contactless operations do not overload ...
        2. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 30 March 2018 22: 47
          +4
          Achieved, including KAZ, a decent level. A defense-attack balance sufficient for our tasks in the region. Not an ideal tank, but quite a workhorse
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 31 March 2018 00: 16
            +1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            A defense-attack balance sufficient for our tasks in the region.

            Are you trying to justify his flaws?
            The best tank is the one in the army.
            1. karish
              karish 31 March 2018 00: 18
              +2
              Quote: Setrac
              The best tank is the one in the army.

              doubt it.
              the best tank that doesn't fight.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 31 March 2018 00: 31
                +2
                Quote: karish
                doubt it.
                the best tank that doesn't fight.

                Alas, this is not so.
                Apparently you drew a parallel with the proverb about the most powerful martial artist? If you want to have a strong army, you must take the example from the strong, not from the Chinese. For example, in Russia there is such a proverb - "they give two unbeaten for one beaten."
                1. karish
                  karish 31 March 2018 00: 39
                  +2
                  Quote: Setrac
                  for one beaten two unbeaten give. "

                  Well then, it’s worth stopping at the t-34
                  Confrontation ATGM - tank will continue with various successes.
                  But today there is no replacement for the tank.
                  the challenges have changed and the tasks of the tank are the same
                  This is absolutely not what was required 40 years ago - to rush with speed and force the English Channel.
                  tanks today are a war in the settlements.
                  Therefore, crew protection is the main thing.
                  As recently as 3 weeks ago I was in Latrun in the tank museum.
                  Merkava 4 saw more than once, but Namer - climbed on it for the first time.
                  it is simply huge and I can’t imagine how I feel the ones who are moving such power.
                  from all sides of the fighting there are people with all the advantages and disadvantages.
                  And a sense of security that ensures that Merkava ,. that Namer is far from the last thing
            2. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 31 March 2018 01: 39
              +6
              I know both its advantages and its shortcomings. No perfect tanks. If he did not arrange an army, then they would develop another tank (or buy the same Abrams).
    2. sergeyezhov
      sergeyezhov April 6 2018 09: 35
      0
      Quote: _Jack_
      Mk 4 in the 2004 year was adopted, 14 years have passed, when Mk 5 will be?

      It is very likely that the next generation will be unmanned vehicles. They do not need strong armor, they are much smaller and their price is much less. Existing tanks will thus be used more as commander tanks.
  11. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 30 March 2018 16: 31
    0
    What’s the idea of ​​making a tower like a flying saucer? With sides with a negative slope, i.e. as if beating off incoming shells down to the junction of the tower and the hull? It doesn’t seem to be good for your health - it will break or jam and hello.
    1. Conserp
      Conserp 30 March 2018 19: 00
      +1
      There are light destructible packages with "reflective sheets" a la "Ilyich’s eyebrows" at the T-55.

      Since the packages are hung outside, and not inside the main armor, consider this ersatz armor one-time and only bullets can ricochet there.

      1. merkava-2bet
        merkava-2bet 30 March 2018 22: 55
        +8
        This is the Merkava-4 tank without a letter during the Second Lebanon, by the way, my comrade was in it, everyone was alive, and the fact that the armor was distorted, and that, an hour later it was replaced with a new armored module and the tank was ready for new tasks, and the fact that the armor did its job, protected the crew, it’s a fact, or you like a tank like the whole outside but with a dead crew inside.
        1. Conserp
          Conserp 31 March 2018 01: 28
          0
          Quote: merkava-2bet
          what armor did its job

          At the same time, it became worthless and lost its protective properties.
          With normal armor such garbage does not occur.
          Even DZ "Contact-V" more adequately retains protective qualities after operation.
          1. merkava-2bet
            merkava-2bet 31 March 2018 01: 47
            +6
            At least you yourself understood that you wrote how DZ Contact-5 can keep its protective qualities after being triggered when everything blows the hell out of it both from an explosion of the ammunition and from explosives in the Contact-5 DZ. Normal armor, as you say, must withstand the hit even at the cost of its destruction, that’s why protection is created, but in a small area of ​​damaged or bare armor the probability of getting into it is very small.
            1. Conserp
              Conserp 31 March 2018 10: 44
              0
              Quote: merkava-2bet
              how can DZ Contact-5 maintain protective qualities after operation

              Elementary - explosive element is consumed, but the metal and polymer layers remain in place. Only the end cap flies off.

              1. Falcon5555
                Falcon5555 31 March 2018 14: 45
                +5
                I read it more than once, and once again I checked that the outer plate always flies away, and according to some reports, the inner plate, which is thinner, flies to the body. What's in the picture - a block like without a side plug - I don’t know, something is not right. There are no polymer layers in contact-5.
                1. prosto_rgb
                  prosto_rgb 31 March 2018 23: 24
                  +2
                  Quote: Falcon5555
                  I read it more than once, and once again I checked that the outer plate always flies away, and according to some reports, the inner plate, which is thinner, flies to the body. What's in the picture - a block like without a side plug - I don’t know, something is not right. There are no polymer layers in contact-5.

                  Absolutely.
                  With the real actuation of the element, the DZ is so. And on those on the tower and the opposite lower / upper part of the module for the company is ejected.
                  In the best case, neighboring modules remain in place, although they may fly away, depending on the situation. Nobody canceled the probability of the cumulative jet spreading through the projection of several adjacent elements of the remote sensing.
                  Judging by the inlet of the cumulative jet in this photo, the lower sections (2 adjacent, or even 3) just worked and as a result of the destruction of the over-caterpillar tanks, shelves and part of the bulwark, and the upper ones were ejected.
              2. prosto_rgb
                prosto_rgb 31 March 2018 23: 10
                0
                Quote: Conserp
                Elementary - explosive element is consumed, but the metal and polymer layers remain in place. Only the end cap flies off.

                Who has so severely deceived you with end caps?
                When a DZ element is triggered by your design, the DZ element is ejected into "space" in its entirety and even its lower part (usually usually to the ground or fenders)
                1. Conserp
                  Conserp April 1 2018 00: 20
                  +1
                  In the photo, once again - self-propelled remote control "Knife". This is the first.

                  Secondly, the unit can disrupt the attacking ammunition, this is understandable and normal.
                  1. prosto_rgb
                    prosto_rgb April 1 2018 22: 57
                    0
                    Quote: Conserp
                    In the photo, once again - self-propelled remote control "Knife".

                    yes actually no difference
                    contact-5 triggered on the tower gives a similar picture
                    for the principle of action of DZ and the physics of processes outside the boxes are the same
          2. Maki Avellevich
            Maki Avellevich 31 March 2018 08: 15
            +5
            Quote: Conserp
            At the same time, it became worthless and lost its protective properties.
            With normal armor such garbage does not occur.
            Even DZ "Contact-V" more adequately retains protective qualities after operation.


            you want to eat fish and everything else ..
      2. Falcon5555
        Falcon5555 31 March 2018 02: 43
        0
        And the "reflective sheets" only from above, or - not obvious from the photo - from below too?
        1. Conserp
          Conserp 31 March 2018 12: 15
          0
          It also shows that the top and bottom of this armored beak are the same, and a significant part of the volume is just air.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 30 March 2018 22: 51
      +4
      Because often a tank is fired from above: from windows and from roofs in cities, where most of the hostilities in our area are. Including from RPGs and ATGMs. Hence the shape of the turtle.
      Mounted removable armor - with ceramics and fillers inside. It is terribly broken when hit by kumma and “crowbars”, but it does its job.
  12. andrewkor
    andrewkor 30 March 2018 16: 37
    0
    The absence of a machine-gun remotely controlled module (s) is striking in all the presented photos and descriptions, which somehow contradicts the concept of saving the crew’s life.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 30 March 2018 22: 53
      +4
      He is, of course. The Browning 0.5 machine gun in front of the turret is controlled from the inside. But here reloading from the inside, unfortunately, no.
    2. merkava-2bet
      merkava-2bet 30 March 2018 23: 44
      +2
      I have it, I saw at least two samples of fire protection systems, 7,62 and 12,7 caliber. Now some Merkava-4 tanks replace the coaxial 7,62 machine gun with 12,7, why the 7,62 caliber is already ineffective against reinforced concrete and the gun isn’t you can always use it, and an automatic grenade launcher of 40 mm caliber is placed above the cannon, it is much more effective than a 12,7 machine gun against the calculations of RPGs and ATGMs.
  13. Wolka
    Wolka 30 March 2018 19: 57
    +1
    really good tank, but not the best about what the article reflects
    1. merkava-2bet
      merkava-2bet 31 March 2018 01: 02
      +4
      No one in the world has the best tank in the world, there is a tank that meets the requirements of modern combat or not, if it meets, then naturally it will be more expensive, bigger and heavier, nothing is given for free it's a fact.
      1. Conserp
        Conserp 31 March 2018 01: 26
        +2
        Quote: merkava-2bet
        No one in the world has the best tank in the world

        There is such a tank. On Red Square will soon go again.
        1. merkava-2bet
          merkava-2bet 31 March 2018 01: 54
          +4
          The only advantage of the Armat tank compared to the Merkava-4 is the capsule placement of the crew in the tank, the rest is not so significant, even the presence of an automatic loader is not so critical, the rest of the Merkava tank has been around for many years, the SLA is the best fact in the world, and This was recognized by both Americans and the British and French, especially in the Merkava-4Mem Baz tank with the new 2017 BMS.
          1. Conserp
            Conserp 31 March 2018 12: 15
            +2
            "Halva, halva!"

            PS Do you have such a shit in education in Israel that they do not teach you to put spaces after punctuation marks?
  14. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet 30 March 2018 22: 48
    +5
    Quote: realist
    probably a good tank merkava, but 70 tons! in Europe there are no bridges of such carrying capacity, and the soil has a lower bearing capacity than in the homeland of the Jews. and all other qualities are good only in comparison with the relatively old modifications of the T-72, no one knows how he behaves in battles with an equal enemy. The device is not bad but for solving a narrow range of tasks under certain conditions.

    Seriously, and Abrams and Challenger and Leopard with all the body kit and pribludy weigh 70+ tons and that this stopped them, do not carry nonsense sweet people.
  15. family tree
    family tree 30 March 2018 23: 21
    +2
    That's about the combat use of the mortar, because the weapons for the tank are unique. I would like an opinion from users what
    1. merkava-2bet
      merkava-2bet 30 March 2018 23: 30
      +4
      We used it both to illuminate the terrain when fighting in the urban and suburban areas, together with infantry and everything, I did not use high-explosive fragmentation mines, sometimes only during exercises. At the moment, the use of a mortar in a tank is atavism and anachronism, so as the ammunition tank Merkava includes very effective and advanced shells with various functions and most importantly high accuracy and range.
      1. merkava-2bet
        merkava-2bet 30 March 2018 23: 34
        +3
        At the moment, the only use of the mortar, I see only how to shoot lighting and gas mines and also new parachute cameras for exploring the area.
        1. Kars
          Kars 30 March 2018 23: 55
          +3
          I see you with the mercans on you))
          Do not tell me the mortar remained on the 4 MK? Otherwise there is a hatch in the expected place, but the photo of the open only is very far away.
          And how were the hits in the chain defense?
          1. merkava-2bet
            merkava-2bet 31 March 2018 00: 36
            +5
            Yes there is, but very often it is removed for additional equipment or ammunition, more often for equipment.
          2. merkava-2bet
            merkava-2bet 31 March 2018 00: 39
            +5
            Regarding the chain defense of the tower’s aft niche, I won’t lie or see even those who were in Lebanon in the First War of 1982 and further in other operations.
            1. Kars
              Kars 31 March 2018 01: 07
              +2
              It’s a pity. But I somehow came across a photo of MK4 where she does not have half the chains from one side.
              Thank you.
    2. Conserp
      Conserp 31 March 2018 01: 25
      +2
      Quote: perepilka
      That's about the combat use of the mortar, because the weapons for the tank are unique.

      None is unique - in “Churchill” and “Tiger” there were such, for example.
      1. family tree
        family tree 31 March 2018 11: 42
        +2
        Quote: Conserp
        None is unique - in “Churchill” and “Tiger” there were such, for example.

        No, not the mortars on the tower, but a full-fledged mortar. It stands inside the tower, breech-loading, with a sight and a range of ammunition. You can’t find the photo now; it’s attached to the tower wall.
        1. Conserp
          Conserp 31 March 2018 12: 18
          +1
          It was the full-fledged breech-loading mortars that were in the Churchill and the Tiger.
          1. family tree
            family tree 31 March 2018 12: 37
            +1
            If not difficult, then in more detail, as previously unheard of. I dig myself, if I find, lay out.
            No, if what was set instead of the main barrel, then this is no longer a tank.
            Namely, as an addition to the core.
            1. Conserp
              Conserp 31 March 2018 13: 38
              +1
              Yes, I was a little mistaken - these mortars are not quite full-fledged: there is no accurate aiming in range (several fixed values).
              In Churchill - "2-inch mortar"



              In the "Tiger" was "Nahverteidigungswaffe"
              1. family tree
                family tree 31 March 2018 15: 35
                +3
                Thanks anyway, I'll drag you to my place, with your permission?
                The church still seems to have a range, fasteners to the cradle
                1. Conserp
                  Conserp 31 March 2018 20: 57
                  +1
                  In the "Tiger" he spun 360, whether the range changed - xs.

                  In Churchill, the mortar is rigidly fixed, aiming across the horizon with the entire tower, there are several range settings (apparently a gas regulator, hardly variable charges).
  16. shuravi
    shuravi 31 March 2018 00: 29
    +2
    Quote: svp67

    Theory and practice say that the closer the crew is placed to the center of mass of the tank, and the tank, in turn, is to the geometric center of the combat vehicle, the more comfortable it is for the crew to work, especially the gunner.


    Where have you been before? And then I was flying off the whole service on Mi-24 and did not know. laughing
    1. merkava-2bet
      merkava-2bet 31 March 2018 00: 43
      +1
      Especially the crew of the Tu-160
    2. Kars
      Kars 31 March 2018 01: 08
      +6
      And how many people left on it over bumps and ravines? I think the ground armored vehicles and the helicopter / plane are not very appropriate.
      1. shuravi
        shuravi 31 March 2018 01: 36
        +2
        Quote: Kars
        And how many people left on it over bumps and ravines? I think the ground armored vehicles and the helicopter / plane are not very appropriate.


        And what is a flight on the PMV in the mode of envelope relief and at the same time anti-aircraft maneuvering, can you imagine?
        They somehow took fellow travelers from the infantry. And they seemed to be sitting in the center of mass, but I don’t understand what they turned green.laughing
        1. merkava-2bet
          merkava-2bet 31 March 2018 02: 06
          +4
          Probably thought about their life and worldly affairs, as well as from the Matyuk towards the crew.
  17. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet 31 March 2018 14: 10
    +7
    Quote: Conserp
    "Halva, halva!"

    PS Do you have such a shit in education in Israel that they do not teach you to put spaces after punctuation marks?

    And how many languages ​​do you speak, wise guy. I have studied four, plus two more, and I have been living in Israel for 20 years, besides I have a very high level Russian, unlike many here on the forum, but your humility is destructive and unfounded.
    1. Conserp
      Conserp 31 March 2018 17: 56
      +1
      And on all four you write equally illiterate as an 8-year-old child?

      Or do you knowingly and defiantly spit on the norms of the language (of any European language) in order to express disrespect for the reader in this way?

      Question for a million - dropout or hamlo!
      1. merkava-2bet
        merkava-2bet 31 March 2018 18: 13
        +8
        I do not understand, you have a personal dislike of me and phonetics and spelling of the Russian language, then you have the right to make comments to all forum participants, but on condition that you are a Russian language teacher with experience and those who have Russian citizenship, and not me. And secondly, if it hurts you like this, then this forum is not for you, you are looking for another, more humanitarian one, since you are not competent enough in military technology.
        1. Conserp
          Conserp 31 March 2018 18: 33
          +1
          Everything is clear - hamlo and troll.
          1. merkava-2bet
            merkava-2bet 31 March 2018 18: 52
            +5
            And what am I a boor and a troll?
        2. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 31 March 2018 21: 03
          +7
          Do not argue with Conspr. Lose time and risk. He is so arrogant, so poorly educated. It will deliberately provoke you to respond to rudeness so that you receive warnings. Do only technical posts and answer only to adequate opponents.
          1. Conserp
            Conserp April 1 2018 00: 34
            +1
            You are our educated one, tell me, why do you personally put spaces after punctuation marks?
            Come on, show solidarity with your fellow-intellectual in full!
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet 31 March 2018 14: 57
    +2
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    Quote: Conserp
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    how can DZ Contact-5 maintain protective qualities after operation

    Elementary - explosive element is consumed, but the metal and polymer layers remain in place. Only the end cap flies off.
    You don’t even have a clue how DZ, Contact-1 and 5 work. Contact-1 is a hinged anti-cumulative dynamic protection based on the principle of angled plates or armored elements. Contact-5 is also a function for reducing or destroying BOPs (scrap) cores due to the thick armored cover of the unit, as well as due to the re-reflection of the missile plate from the back side of the external armor of the tank, so the photo shows the absence of a cover or stopper for equipping the explosive block with the missile plate. Want to see good photos of how DZ Contact-1 and 5 worked , read a very good magazine Front-line illustration, two issues under the heading "Tanks in Grozny", see a lot of interesting photos.
    [/ b] [b]
    1. merkava-2bet
      merkava-2bet 31 March 2018 15: 24
      +3
      Here, a couple of schemes and photos
      1. Conserp
        Conserp April 1 2018 00: 36
        +1
        In the photo - DZ "Knife".

        Naturally.
    2. Conserp
      Conserp 31 March 2018 18: 03
      +1
      Photos worked "Contact-5" - in the studio. “Knife”, “Contact-1” and hitting past them - go through the forest.

      I saw other photos (I haven’t found them now). They look the same - the main armor plates of the modules remain in place.

      Quote: merkava-2bet
      You don’t even have a clue how DZ, Contact-1 and 5 work.

      I look, you like to project.

      And the inability to learn the elementary rule "a space is placed after periods and commas" -
      normal children learn it at the age of five, reading a book about a bun - speaks of clinical learning disabilities and other pathologies.
      1. merkava-2bet
        merkava-2bet 31 March 2018 18: 44
        +4
        Firstly, do not poke me, I appeal to you with respect, not contempt, you can ask, this is not scary, but it’s harmful to show stupidity. And here are a couple of pictures of Contact-5.
        1. Conserp
          Conserp 31 March 2018 21: 01
          +1
          The boorish troll cowardly spits on the basic norms of linguistic culture and does not put spaces.

          The troll pops a picture in which there is no hit in the DZ.

          Plum 2 times counted.
          1. merkava-2bet
            merkava-2bet 31 March 2018 22: 30
            +5
            Firstly, you’re degenerate, and it’s complete. And I spit on you about the gaps, so it’s in your head. And your cowardice saves you at a distance where you sit cowardly in front of the keyboard and pour out your own poison that heavy childhood surges in. A Now you can choke on your anger all over the world.
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 31 March 2018 23: 15
              +6
              You are openly provoked, and you succumb in vain. sad
              Ignore his gross attacks, do not waste your nerves on inadequate opponents.
              There are people here who are really interested in tanks. They are interested in your experience as a tanker. fellow
              1. merkava-2bet
                merkava-2bet 31 March 2018 23: 56
                +4
                This was the last message to this individual.
                1. Conserp
                  Conserp April 1 2018 00: 14
                  0
                  The juvenile hamlo of a sponge pouted. I cried already - what a loss!
            2. Conserp
              Conserp April 1 2018 00: 38
              0
              Quote: merkava-2bet
              HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT I AM 12 YEARS OF PATAMUKAK I WALK ??? !!!


              Come on, don't be shy.
  20. svp67
    svp67 April 1 2018 12: 55
    0
    Quote: Conserp
    This does not mean that they provide 99% of hits at a speed of 50 km / h over bumps

    "On the bumps" and on the "panzer", and even at a speed of 50 km per hour, but why not 100? The main thing here is that they would have managed to invent "boots" for the "infantry" following this tank .... At this speed, tanks will go into battle very, very rarely. I said about the infantry, but it’s worth remembering that the crew inside the tank will be VERY sweet, it’s definitely not going to be fired, the main thing is to protect yourself from meeting with any angle or protrusion of the “internal equipment” of the tank, otherwise it will print that and no enemies ...
  21. Alex X
    Alex X April 1 2018 21: 40
    +3
    A universal tank has certain requirements, while a specialized one (according to different criteria) has different requirements.
    If we consider Merkava as a universal tank (what to do is rather stupid - it wasn’t created for this), then it doesn’t differ by any “increased crew protection” - except for CAS.
    Increased security begins with protection against detection. The front engine position is the stupidest thing you can do in terms of this requirement.
    The second safety requirement is to maintain the mobility of the tank, even in the event of combat damage. Again, the front location of the MTB (motor-transmission unit) is the fastest way to quickly immobilize the tank and turn it into a target. Especially given the weak reservation of the frontal NBL.
    Further. The front (more precisely, the front-side) location of the MTB DOES NOT PROTECT the crew from a typical “front” attack. The driver sits to the left of the MTB, and not behind him. The other three crew members are in the tower.

    MTB moved forward with only one goal - to create habitable space at the back. A kind of micro-armored personnel carrier. And against the partisans - microdot :). For a short time, partisan attacks from an ambush. Against another enemy, the first thing the crew of an immobilized tank needs to do is leave it as quickly as possible. Especially if immobility is caused by the destruction of the engine, i.e. loss of performance of all systems.
    Everything else, in terms of the front engine layout, is a solid flaw.

    The designers of the Chariot knew what they were doing - they had no idea of ​​making a universal machine. They did what was needed on this theater, taking into account the real enemy and real threats. Of course, Merkava does not meet the requirements for MBT as a universal combat vehicle, and it was not intended to comply from the very beginning.
    1. merkava-2bet
      merkava-2bet April 1 2018 22: 15
      +1
      There is no universal tank, before there were light, medium, heavy, infantry, cruising and assault, and what, and the fact that the Second World War put everything in its place, and further wars and conflicts gave rise to new classes of vehicles, but did not pretend life of a universal tank or other weapons and equipment. You would also say an absolute tank.
      1. Alex X
        Alex X April 1 2018 22: 53
        +2
        > There is no universal tank

        Exist. Soviet teshki, especially from the 64th, for example. Suitable in Europe and the Middle East, and in Siberia, and in the Arctic, and in India, and in Africa. Winter and summer, spring and autumn. And in the meadow, and in the desert, and in the steppe, and in the mountains. Both in defense and in attack. Yes, they are not designed for anti-piracy activities in cities, but these are not tanks at all, by definition.

        And Merkava - first forced (using the British prototype), and then deliberately - a specialized tank. Hence, such decisions as the front location of the MTB, the spring suspension, the rear compartment at the rear, etc.

        By the way, like Abrams, which is optimized for anti-tank operations in defense (it is clear why). And it cannot be transformed into a universal one - the ammunition is too vulnerable, it is not for nothing that the American industry does not produce high-explosive fragmentation of tank shells at all. So he goes with crowbars, cum and shrapnel. Otherwise, which one will climb into it. Those. it is useless against the purposes for which tanks were created - the protected infantry in the prepared defense.
        1. merkava-2bet
          merkava-2bet April 1 2018 23: 21
          +1
          I don’t want to offend you, but you don’t understand what you are writing about, you have a poor idea of ​​the essence of what a tank is and what is most important its tasks.
          Firstly, the T-64 tank was created as a tank destroyer, it’s not me who invented it, it’s written in books, of which I read a lot. It was revolutionary and it ruined it, turning its life into drama and politics.
          1. Alex X
            Alex X April 2 2018 01: 19
            +3
            :)
            You are very funny - "so it is written in books."
            Andrei, it’s easy to write a book, I’m the author of three published books (not on tanks). With regard to technology, it does not matter what is written in the books. And one - one, in another - another. Morozov - one, Venediktov - another, Kartsev - quite a third. I read all three (notes, memoirs, memoirs of their employees). And a lot of everything besides these people.
            > you have a poor idea of ​​the very essence of what a tank is and, most importantly, its tasks.
            What are you saying? And what were the tasks of ALL staging tanks - starting with the Mk.1 and Renault F17, through mass Wehrmacht vehicles and teshes to the current Leopards and Armat? Yes, the Anglo-Saxons have their own idea of ​​the army in general and tanks in particular. But Anglo-Saxons need to listen when the ogies write about naval strategy, and not about tanks.

            > First, the T-64 was created as a tank destroyer
            Andrey, sorry. but this is nonsense. And not because someone wrote about it or didn’t write about it in the books. But because there are those. task, technical specifications, strategy and tactics, combat manuals and application practice.

            > Yes, he was revolutionary and that ruined him, turning his life into drama and politics

            What ruined him? :) He became the founder of the family of the most massive, sold, fighting and used tanks around the world, the modernization potential of which has not been exhausted even now. 50 plus years. Is it drama, politics, and doom? Politics is a stupid glorification of Merkava for its missing virtues. Politics is bad talk about "detonation due to automatic loading." Politics is the dumb writing of donkeys and propagandists like P. Felgenhauer. Wow, politics. :)

            Look at things sensibly. You are a soldier, after all. We found someone / what to listen to - books from the Cold War era written by paid call experts. There is no head to appreciate simple and obvious things?
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine April 2 2018 01: 59
              +1
              Quote: Alex X
              He became the founder of the family of the most massive, sold, fighting and used tanks around the world, the modernization potential of which has not been exhausted even now.

              Strictly speaking, no, I didn’t. The most massive was the competing / revised project, the T-72.
              If you are talking about the fact that the T-64 became the first MBT, then in the West tanks with L7 are considered as MBT, that is, from the 59th year for Centurion and M60. As a matter of fact, the T-64 was a relatively successful attempt by the USSR to close the tank lag, which became obvious in the 52nd and catastrophic by the mid-60s.
              Quote: Alex X
              But because there are those. task, technical specifications, strategy and tactics, combat manuals and application practice.

              And all this can be out of date. Tanks invented for tank wedges will not be optimal for urban battles. And it’s Merkava that is the only machine that has developed on the basis of current requirements, and not under Massrubilovo at the Central European theater. The rest of the cars, whether bad or good, were re-designed for the city from an initially different concept.

              Which, of course, does not mean that Merkava is perfect now or was perfect ever before.
              Quote: Alex X
              And what were the tasks of ALL staging tanks - starting with the Mk.1 and Renault F17, through mass Wehrmacht vehicles and teshes to the current Leopards and Armat?

              There were different tasks.
              1. Alex X
                Alex X April 2 2018 02: 30
                +3
                > Strictly speaking, no, I didn't. The most massive was a competing / revised project, the T-72.

                Those. You do not consider 72-ku the successor of the concept of 64-ki? :) But even so, I’ll just exclude 64 from the list of “universal Soviet tanks”, and that’s it. What will change in this dispute?

                > If you mean that the T-64 became the first MBT, then in the West, tanks with L7 are considered MBT, that is, from the 59th year for the Centurion and M60.

                I am aware, but, firstly, I didn’t mean it, and, secondly, the Centurion does not "pull", even with L7. Controversy over priorities is politics.

                > Tanks designed for tank wedges will not be optimal for urban combat.
                Teshki are good for tank wedges, and for urban battles. See Syria now.
                A universal tank is universal in order to meet the requirements in different conditions, and not be "optimal" in one thing.

                > Merkava is the only car that has evolved based on current requirements

                Is it a fight against partisans, armed mines and RPGs? Are these requirements “relevant” to tanks now? :)
                You are a strange person. Requirements - this is the "expert opinion." Today they have one "main trevorvaniya", and tomorrow - completely different. Or tomorrow, other experts.
                Well, imagine that in the Russian army there are now not 2500 teshek, but 2500 Merkav (with spare parts, service, etc. - as the best tank under the Moon and the "only one designed with modern requirements in mind"). You don’t understand what the meaning of the incapacity of Russian tank units means?

                > There were different tasks.
                No, the same ones. The defeat of dangerous for attacking firing points, fortifications (including tanks), etc. during the attack, counteracting the attacking infantry, tanks and artillery (self-propelled guns) in defensive defense.

                These are the usual, standard requirements for tanks from the moment they appear to the present day. Who could not cope with this (with one type of tank mlm ten - it does not matter) - lost both battles and wars (on land, without the overwhelming dominance of enemy aircraft, of course).
                I'm not talking about counterguerrilla (now called "anti-terrorist") operations, of course.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine April 2 2018 03: 11
                  +1
                  Quote: Alex X
                  Those. You do not consider 72-ku the successor of the concept of 64-ki? :) But even so, I’ll just exclude 64 from the list of “universal Soviet tanks”, and that’s it. What will change in this dispute?

                  Bug fix soon. What other argument?
                  Quote: Alex X
                  I am aware, but, firstly, I didn’t mean it, and, secondly, the Centurion does not "pull", even with L7. Controversy over priorities is politics.

                  Centurion pulled himself quite well from the 45th to the 64th year, and on secondary theater stages later. I don’t see any particular debate about “priorities”. The question is purely national terminology. In the USSR, tanks up to T-64 were “medium”, and among the British “medium”, Centurion left Panther far beyond 40 tons, overtook the T-10 in later versions and became somehow not very average, but also did not become heavy .
                  Quote: Alex X
                  See Syria now.

                  See Grozny 95. And there and there, the effectiveness of tanks depends on anything, but not on the qualities of the tanks themselves, by the way.
                  Quote: Alex X
                  universal, to meet the requirements in different conditions, and not to be "optimal" in one thing.

                  As a result, a universal machine will merge with a specialized one.
                  Quote: Alex X
                  Is it a fight against partisans, armed mines and RPGs? Are these requirements “relevant” to tanks now? :)

                  Exactly.
                  Quote: Alex X
                  You don’t understand what the meaning of the incapacity of Russian tank units means?

                  Will you talk about mobility?
                  Quote: Alex X
                  No, the same ones. The defeat of dangerous for attacking firing points, fortifications (including tanks), etc. during the attack, counteracting the attacking infantry, tanks and artillery (self-propelled guns) in defensive defense.

                  Did you expect all this from the FT-17?
                  Quote: Alex X
                  I'm not talking about counterguerrilla (now called "anti-terrorist") operations, of course.

                  That is, in your opinion, the Jews should not make tanks for the wars they are waging, but for the Second World War again? By the way, you just recalled Syria.
                  1. Alex X
                    Alex X April 2 2018 05: 27
                    +2
                    What other argument?


                    About that which is conducted in this branch. About universal tanks, and their presence or absence.
                    Centurion left after Panther well beyond 40 tons, overtook in the later versions of the T-10 and became somehow not very average, but also did not become heavy.


                    The concept of MBT is not limited to weight alone.

                    Exactly.


                    :)
                    And if it turns out that this is not so? From you, as from a couch expert, bribes are smooth - you never know what kind of "thoughts" and "conclusions" are expressed from boredom.

                    Will you talk about mobility?


                    And about mobility, and about transportation, and about much more. Do you think to get rid of such conversations with irony? :)

                    Did you expect all this from the FT-17?


                    Of course. That is what they did very well. Is the French (and everyone who made Renoshki licensed) guilty, that the Germans did not have tanks, and in this sense there was nothing to "exterminate"?

                    That is, in your opinion, the Jews should not make tanks for the wars they are waging, but for the Second World War again?


                    Did you read exactly what I wrote? Repeated several times - Merkava is optimal given the very specific requirements for it.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine April 2 2018 07: 22
                      0
                      Quote: Alex X
                      About that which is conducted in this branch. About universal tanks, and their presence or absence.

                      I don’t see any argument here. The USSR made tanks for its purposes (Seven days before the Rhine River), Israel - for its own (first - the reception of the Syrians in the Golan, then - endless operations in Lebanon, Gaza, etc.). Both that and that is quite reasonable.
                      Quote: Alex X
                      Repeated several times - Merkava is optimal given the very specific requirements for it.

                      Here you go.
                      Quote: Alex X
                      And if it turns out that this is not so?

                      If it turns out, then I will most likely be already dead. So no difference.
                      Quote: Alex X
                      And about mobility, and about transportation, and about much more.

                      And nothing more. If the auxiliary parts remain equipped with equipment for 50 tons, then yes, there will be difficulties with transportation, all of a sudden.
                      Quote: Alex X
                      That is what they did very well.

                      With fortifications?
                      Quote: Alex X
                      I am not interested in discussing Svidomo national phobias.

                      Regardless of how you call the second largest Soviet ethnic group, you are apparently not able to discuss what was said. Since in my post they saw the slogan, ignoring the specifics.
              2. Alex X
                Alex X April 2 2018 05: 32
                +2
                As a matter of fact, the T-64 was a relatively successful attempt by the USSR to close the tank lag, which became obvious in the 52nd and catastrophic by the mid-60s.


                I am not interested in discussing Svidomo national phobias.
              3. Conserp
                Conserp April 2 2018 10: 27
                0
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                If you are talking about the fact that the T-64 became the first MBT, then in the West tanks with L7 are considered as MBT, that is, from the 59th year for Centurion and M60.

                You never know what is there in the West who believes. The opinion of propagandists and illiterates is not interesting to anyone.
                Educated people are only interested in clear criteria for compliance.

                Quote: Cherry Nine
                As a matter of fact, the T-64 was a relatively successful attempt by the USSR to close the tank lag, which became obvious in the 52nd and catastrophic by the mid-60s.

                Ahhh, are you an addict? Successfully legalized your anasha, yes. You can climb on the VO stoned in zyuzy.

                It is very interesting which (in drug fantasies) western tanks in terms of performance characteristics and mass character at least caught up with the T-1950/54, T-55 and IS-62 / IS-3 / T-4 in the 10s, not to mention the T- 64 in the mid-60s.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine April 2 2018 13: 00
                  +1
                  Quote: Conserp
                  only clear criteria for compliance.

                  No one is interested. According to the "clear criteria" Merkava will be a BMP, and the British from Chiften will be a turret tank destroyer.
                  Quote: Conserp
                  at least caught up in the 1950s

                  I, it seems, clearly indicated what kind of car we are talking about. The 52nd year is the M48.
                  Quote: Conserp
                  not to mention the T-64 in the mid-60s

                  The enemies of the M60 alone produced 2 for each T-64 made. And the middle of the 60s is December 30, 66 years, more than 7 years after the M60. Fundamentally, this situation changed only in the mid-70s, when the T-72 went into a large series, and the bourgeois failed the MBT-70 program.
                  The bourgeoisie was able to return the quality advantage only by the mid-80s, already with the new concept of tank battle.
                  1. Conserp
                    Conserp April 2 2018 17: 20
                    0
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    I, it seems, clearly indicated what kind of car we are talking about. The 52nd year is the M48.

                    It was not worth bothering myself - I immediately realized that we were talking about illiterate nonsense.

                    M48 - a tank weighing 45 tons with a 90 mm unstabilized gun, an approximate analogue of the old Soviet IS-1.

                    I didn’t even lie next to Soviet classmates - heavy tanks, inferior even to the Soviet medium T-54 tanks of early modifications.

                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    The enemies of the M60 alone produced 2 for each T-64 made.

                    M60 - just as flawed squalor as the M48, competing with the exception of the T-54A. How many T-54, T-55 and T-62 were in the Soviet army at that time?
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine April 2 2018 20: 29
                      +4
                      Quote: Conserp
                      M48 - a tank weighing 45 tons with a 90 mm unstabilized gun, an approximate analogue of the old Soviet IS-1.

                      Such a statement alone is not surprising.

                      Another thing is surprising. The experts of your flight usually swarm in other sections - news, opinions, analytics, history. Actually, for them there is a large part of the site. You, for some reason, are drawn almost exclusively to the technical section. In a quick glance, you were noted in tanks, and in ships, and in rocket science. Moreover, the technique is absolutely not interesting to you. Any.

                      For example.
                      Quote: Conserp
                      How many T-54, T-55 and T-62 were in the Soviet army at that time?

                      16 thousand, 600, not a single one. The ratio of the capabilities of the T-54 and M60 almost exactly corresponded to the T-72 / M1A1. Iraqi T-72.

                      So what do you find lulz from your presence in the discussion? Just to be rude?
                      1. Conserp
                        Conserp April 2 2018 20: 49
                        0
                        I will not comment on this - it’s not good to mock sick people.
    2. merkava-2bet
      merkava-2bet April 1 2018 22: 22
      +1
      After the Second World War, a new tank appeared - the Main Battle Tank, but this did not cancel the light tanks in many armies of the world, as well as a new brand-wheeled tank.
      1. Alex X
        Alex X April 1 2018 22: 37
        +3
        In order for MBT to appear, it was necessary to have a very optimal combination of weight, security, controllability, firepower, maneuverability, transportability, thesis technology, etc. This was very difficult to obtain. Therefore, he appeared only in the 60s.
        A light and wheeled tank is either a saving (a need, not a virtue), or a purely gendarme-police function, especially in cities.
  22. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet April 2 2018 03: 18
    +1
    Quote: Alex X
    > Strictly speaking, no, I didn't. The most massive was a competing / revised project, the T-72.

    Those. You do not consider 72-ku the successor of the concept of 64-ki? :) But even so, I’ll just exclude 64 from the list of “universal Soviet tanks”, and that’s it. What will change in this dispute?

    > If you mean that the T-64 became the first MBT, then in the West, tanks with L7 are considered MBT, that is, from the 59th year for the Centurion and M60.

    I am aware, but, firstly, I didn’t mean it, and, secondly, the Centurion does not "pull", even with L7. Controversy over priorities is politics.

    > Tanks designed for tank wedges will not be optimal for urban combat.
    Teshki are good for tank wedges, and for urban battles. See Syria now.
    A universal tank is universal in order to meet the requirements in different conditions, and not be "optimal" in one thing.

    > Merkava is the only car that has evolved based on current requirements

    Is it a fight against partisans, armed mines and RPGs? Are these requirements “relevant” to tanks now? :)
    You are a strange person. Requirements - this is the "expert opinion." Today they have one "main trevorvaniya", and tomorrow - completely different. Or tomorrow, other experts.
    Well, imagine that in the Russian army there are now not 2500 teshek, but 2500 Merkav (with spare parts, service, etc. - as the best tank under the Moon and the "only one designed with modern requirements in mind"). You don’t understand what the meaning of the incapacity of Russian tank units means?

    > There were different tasks.
    No, the same ones. The defeat of dangerous for attacking firing points, fortifications (including tanks), etc. during the attack, counteracting the attacking infantry, tanks and artillery (self-propelled guns) in defensive defense.

    These are the usual, standard requirements for tanks from the moment they appear to the present day. Who could not cope with this (with one type of tank mlm ten - it does not matter) - lost both battles and wars (on land, without the overwhelming dominance of enemy aircraft, of course).
    I'm not talking about counterguerrilla (now called "anti-terrorist") operations, of course.

    We begin to go into abstract polemics and interpretations of truths.
    First, the Merkava tank was created for the maximum possible survival of the crew, then the convenience of operation and quick recovery after the battle, this concept was the initial one, and subsequently additions were made.
    That is why the tank has a spring suspension that you don’t like for some reason.
    The Armat tank does not have an active suspension, no one in the world has it, it has a torsion bar with dangerous hydraulic shock absorbers, like Merkava-4.
    An active suspension has been developed for many years, but it does not go further than the training ground, and only recently read about a car with an active magnetorheological suspension with active magnetic fluid.
    As for the tanks in Syria, they’re on fire, they’re still burning, and no one knows how many of them were destroyed, including the T-72. But the Syrians had the brains to modify the tanks and they returned to the Merkava tank concept, that is, the tank’s circular defense in urban conditions.
    And even that is half measures.
    1. Alex X
      Alex X April 2 2018 05: 14
      +2
      We begin to go into abstract polemics and interpretations of truths.


      Are you talking about the role of "read books"? :)

      First, the Merkava tank was created for the maximum possible survival of the crew, then the convenience of operation and quick recovery after the battle

      So I about the same thing - just when counting on a very specific battle.

      That is why the tank has a spring suspension that you don’t like for some reason.


      I understand why Merkava has such a suspension. And I think this decision is reasonable - for the theater of war and the type of battle that Merkava is designed for.
      Spring suspensions do not like me, but the designers of the tanks. Due to the much higher weight, dimensions and vulnerability in battle (compared to torsion bars). The spring suspension has its advantages (quick and easy replacement of the roller with suspension, the lack of weakening of the bottom).

      But the Syrians had the brains to modify the tanks and they returned to the Merkava tank concept,


      More on this, please.
    2. Conserp
      Conserp April 2 2018 10: 42
      0
      Quote: merkava-2bet
      The Armat tank has no active suspension, no one in the world has it,

      Uneducated in another otaka. I read “Many Books,” but for some reason I did not master the letter.

      Well, yes, the absence of an active suspension is clearly visible in the video, in which its work is clearly absent
      https://youtu.be/OoOjyYzO9b8?t=48
      With the front roller of the lagging track for 48-51 seconds, nothing happens, this is an optical illusion.

      And how it does not exist and does not work - no one knows either
      gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2015/05/blog-post_29.html
  23. The comment was deleted.
  24. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet April 2 2018 04: 02
    +1
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    And Merkava - first forced (using the British prototype), and then deliberately - a specialized tank. Hence, such decisions as the front location of the MTB, the spring suspension, the rear compartment at the rear, etc.
    [b] [/ b] Regarding the MTO, that is, the engine, which supposedly does not provide protection during shelling.
    Look at the dimensions, but the diesel and hydromechanical transmission are not paper.
    In 2006, during the Second Lebanese, I saw the Merkava-3 Baz tank, which caught the Cornet ATGM exactly in the MTO, and so the engine completely absorbed Cornet's godfather, and this is armor penetration up to 1200 mm, everyone is alive, there wasn’t even a fire, they replaced the diesel engine and I went as if nothing had happened.
    1. Alex X
      Alex X April 2 2018 04: 43
      +1
      A cumulative stream is just a cumulative stream. Hit-not hit something substantial. It's like a PTR bullet. :) Or do you believe in a bike about "pressure"?
      The driver sits to the left of the engine. Those. the engine protects it only from falling into the starboard side. But not in front, and neither on the left nor on the top. The crew in the MTB tower does not protect against the kuma that fell into the hull.
  25. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet April 2 2018 04: 34
    +1
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    Quote: Alex X
    > Strictly speaking, no, I didn't. The most massive was a competing / revised project, the T-72.

    Those. You do not consider 72-ku the successor of the concept of 64-ki? :) But even so, I’ll just exclude 64 from the list of “universal Soviet tanks”, and that’s it. What will change in this dispute?

    > If you mean that the T-64 became the first MBT, then in the West, tanks with L7 are considered MBT, that is, from the 59th year for the Centurion and M60.

    I am aware, but, firstly, I didn’t mean it, and, secondly, the Centurion does not "pull", even with L7. Controversy over priorities is politics.

    > Tanks designed for tank wedges will not be optimal for urban combat.
    Teshki are good for tank wedges, and for urban battles. See Syria now.
    A universal tank is universal in order to meet the requirements in different conditions, and not be "optimal" in one thing.

    > Merkava is the only car that has evolved based on current requirements

    Is it a fight against partisans, armed mines and RPGs? Are these requirements “relevant” to tanks now? :)
    You are a strange person. Requirements - this is the "expert opinion." Today they have one "main trevorvaniya", and tomorrow - completely different. Or tomorrow, other experts.
    Well, imagine that in the Russian army there are now not 2500 teshek, but 2500 Merkav (with spare parts, service, etc. - as the best tank under the Moon and the "only one designed with modern requirements in mind"). You don’t understand what the meaning of the incapacity of Russian tank units means?

    > There were different tasks.
    No, the same ones. The defeat of dangerous for attacking firing points, fortifications (including tanks), etc. during the attack, counteracting the attacking infantry, tanks and artillery (self-propelled guns) in defensive defense.

    These are the usual, standard requirements for tanks from the moment they appear to the present day. Who could not cope with this (with one type of tank mlm ten - it does not matter) - lost both battles and wars (on land, without the overwhelming dominance of enemy aircraft, of course).
    I'm not talking about counterguerrilla (now called "anti-terrorist") operations, of course.

    We begin to go into abstract polemics and interpretations of truths.
    First, the Merkava tank was created for the maximum possible survival of the crew, then the convenience of operation and quick recovery after the battle, this concept was the initial one, and subsequently additions were made.
    That is why the tank has a spring suspension that you don’t like for some reason.
    The Armat tank does not have an active suspension, no one in the world has it, it has a torsion bar with dangerous hydraulic shock absorbers, like Merkava-4.
    An active suspension has been developed for many years, but it does not go further than the training ground, and only recently read about a car with an active magnetorheological suspension with active magnetic fluid.
    As for the tanks in Syria, they’re on fire, they’re still burning, and no one knows how many of them were destroyed, including the T-72. But the Syrians had the brains to modify the tanks and they returned to the Merkava tank concept, that is, the tank’s circular defense in urban conditions.
    And even that is half measures.
  26. rytik32
    rytik32 April 2 2018 09: 38
    +1

    How merkava is above a rather big abrams.
    Moreover, the lower frontal licks merkava - this is cardboard. And the abrams there has normal combined armor.
    This is about engine front costs.
  27. rytik32
    rytik32 April 2 2018 09: 44
    +1
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    In 2006, during the Second Lebanese, I saw the Merkava-3 Baz tank, which caught the ATGM Cornet exactly in the MTO

    And how do you understand what hit the cornet? :)

    For reference. The Swedes once fired at their S-tank with a 125 mm crowbar of not the first freshness (not even a mango). Passed through the frontal and stern leaf. And there are even 2 engines!
  28. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet April 2 2018 14: 36
    +1
    Quote: rytik32

    How merkava is above a rather big abrams.
    Moreover, the lower frontal licks merkava - this is cardboard. And the abrams there has normal combined armor.
    This is about engine front costs.

    [b] [/ b] Firstly, there is such a thing as a meter terrain screen, Abrams VLB corps has homogeneous armor up to 125 mm thick and its area is very large.
  29. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet April 2 2018 16: 27
    +1
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    Quote: rytik32

    How merkava is above a rather big abrams.
    Moreover, the lower frontal licks merkava - this is cardboard. And the abrams there has normal combined armor.
    This is about engine front costs.

    [b] [/ b] Firstly, there is such a thing as a meter terrain screen, Abrams VLB corps has homogeneous armor up to 125 mm thick and its area is very large.

    But VLB tank Merkava-4
    1. rytik32
      rytik32 April 2 2018 18: 16
      +1
      Considering that in a 10 cm plexiglass curtain screen (I gave a link to the proof above), which doesn’t work on crowbars, it turns out Merkava 4 VLD somewhere at the T-72A level.
      1. merkava-2bet
        merkava-2bet April 2 2018 20: 43
        +1
        And who told you this kind of crap, look above the photo of the left side of the Merkava-4 turret that has been scribbled, and where there is plexiglass, this model is also early. With the new composition of armor and based on this technology, Merkava-4Baz Dor Dalet 4 was also improved, and there is also Merkava-3Mem with a new composition of armor and serial KAZ Meil ​​Ruach. Besides the last two modifications, I did not see the composition of the armor, all the earlier ones had layers of armored ceramics , composites and armor, that is, many layers, on the earliest Merkava-2 VLD building the mustache had 4 layers plus an upper power casing, and I haven’t seen 4 cm of fiberglass anywhere, and as far as I know, it is not used as part of the main armor.
  30. The comment was deleted.
  31. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet April 2 2018 16: 40
    +1
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    Quote: Conserp
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    The Armat tank has no active suspension, no one in the world has it,

    Uneducated in another otaka. I read “Many Books,” but for some reason I did not master the letter.

    Well, yes, the absence of an active suspension is clearly visible in the video, in which its work is clearly absent
    https://youtu.be/OoOjyYzO9b8?t=48
    With the front roller of the lagging track for 48-51 seconds, nothing happens, this is an optical illusion.

    And how it does not exist and does not work - no one knows either
    gurkhan.blogspot.ru/2015/05/blog-post_29.html

    What you showed is called the active damper of the longitudinal and transverse vibrations of the tank when driving, in Russia there are still a lot of things written like “has no analogues.” An example of the odious program “Platform-O” where they also want an active suspension and a motor-wheel .
    But the tank with the only semi-active suspension in the world, serial, as I understand it.
    The high mobility of the car is ensured by a powerful power plant with an automatic transmission and a modern chassis design with a unique individual semi-active hydro-pneumatic ISU suspension (ln-arm Suspension Unit) and an automatic traction belt tensioning system. Each support roller of such a suspension is equipped with an individual control system, which allows the tank to “sit down”, “bend down”, “lie down”, lean in any direction, etc. Such “gymnastic exercises” provide an opportunity for the tank to reduce the silhouette if necessary, or, conversely, with maximum "growth" to increase the permeability of the machine. Lowering the front or stern allows you to increase the maximum angles of inclination or elevation of the gun. In general, the hydropneumatic suspension from K2 provides a change in the clearance of the machine in the range from 150 to 550 mm.
  32. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet April 2 2018 17: 01
    +1
    Quote: rytik32
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    In 2006, during the Second Lebanese, I saw the Merkava-3 Baz tank, which caught the ATGM Cornet exactly in the MTO

    And how do you understand what hit the cornet? :)
    [/ b] After the hit, a commission worked, they combed the entire territory, and found debris and the tail of the rocket, there was a laser coordinator, a tube IR tracer, plus the absence of control wires, of all ATGMs only Cornet had such a system.
    For reference. The Swedes once fired at their S-tank with a 125 mm crowbar of not the first freshness (not even a mango). Passed through the frontal and stern leaf. And there are even 2 engines!

    [b] First of all, the STRV-103 was not a tank, but an anti-tank self-propelled gun, with all due respect to the Swedes, it was created to strengthen the defense in depth of the country, by the way, here’s specific military equipment. His armor is weak, not like a 125 mm gun , and the old man D-10T will sew it.
  33. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet April 2 2018 17: 02
    +1
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    Quote: rytik32
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    In 2006, during the Second Lebanese, I saw the Merkava-3 Baz tank, which caught the ATGM Cornet exactly in the MTO

    And how do you understand what hit the cornet? :)
    [/ b] After the hit, a commission worked, they combed the entire territory, and found debris and the tail of the rocket, there was a laser coordinator, a tube IR tracer, plus the absence of control wires, of all ATGMs only Cornet had such a system.
    For reference. The Swedes once fired at their S-tank with a 125 mm crowbar of not the first freshness (not even a mango). Passed through the frontal and stern leaf. And there are even 2 engines!

    [b] First of all, the STRV-103 was not a tank, but an anti-tank self-propelled gun, with all due respect to the Swedes, it was created to strengthen the defense in depth of the country, by the way, here’s specific military equipment. His armor is weak, not like a 125 mm gun , and the old man D-10T will sew it.
  34. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet April 2 2018 17: 05
    +1
    [quote = merkava-2bet] [quote = merkava-2bet] [quote = ry
    tik32] [quote = merkava-2bet] In 2006, during the Second Lebanon, I saw the Merkava-3 Baz tank, which caught the ATRA Cornet exactly in the MTO [/ quote]
    And how do you understand what hit the cornet? :)
    [/ b] After the hit, a commission worked, they combed the entire territory, and found debris and the tail of the rocket, there was a laser coordinator, a tube IR tracer, plus the absence of control wires, of all ATGMs only Cornet had such a system.
    [/ i] [b]
    First of all, the STRV-103 is not a tank, but an anti-tank self-propelled gun, with all due respect to the Swedes, it was created to strengthen the defense in depth of the country, by the way, here’s a special military equipment. His armor is weak, not only a 125 mm gun, but old D-10T will flash it.
    [/ quote] [/ quote]
  35. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet April 2 2018 17: 08
    +1
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    [quote = ry
    tik32]
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    In 2006, during the Second Lebanese, I saw the Merkava-3 Baz tank, which caught the ATGM Cornet exactly in the MTO

    And how do you understand what hit the cornet? :)
    [/ b] After the hit, a commission worked, they combed the entire territory, and found debris and the tail of the rocket, there was a laser coordinator, a tube IR tracer, plus the absence of control wires, of all ATGMs only Cornet had such a system.


    For reference. The Swedes once fired at their S-tank with a 125 mm crowbar of not the first freshness (not even a mango). Passed through the frontal and stern leaf. And there are even 2 engines!


    [b] First of all, the STRV-103 was not a tank, but an anti-tank self-propelled gun, with all due respect to the Swedes, it was created to strengthen the defense in depth of the country, by the way, here’s specific military equipment. His armor is weak, not like a 125 mm gun , and the old man D-10T will sew it.
    [/ Quote]
  36. Cresta999
    Cresta999 April 2 2018 17: 29
    0
    It is amazing how fanaticism interferes with clarity of consciousness!
    Studying history, one can quite confidently assert that Merkava, as a tank for a specific theater and a specific enemy, is a good example of armored vehicles, with which Israel, in combination with other types of weapons, performs its combat missions. But it is also obvious that to admire this technique as an example of an unsurpassed genius as a basic battle tank is sheer nonsense!
    Global conflicts of the 20th century have shown that it is impossible to win a miracle war with weapons. The war is won by a person armed with reliable mass technology that is as simple as possible to maintain and manufacture and suitable for all the conditions in which this equipment may be. And yes, every time specialized equipment will be better (such as the Tiger was better than the T-34), but it does not matter, because the main thing is the way to use the equipment and the interaction of the combat arms on the battlefield! And the more universal the technique, the more convenient it is to use. And finally, to all lovers of Israel - the use of tanks in cities - this is not the discovery of the 21st century! Read about the actions of the T-34 as part of the assault groups in Berlin. Sufficiently effective work with the practical absence of protective equipment from German tank destroyers.
    Conclusion: a tank of the T-14 type is MUCH more technologically advanced and more interesting from the point of view of tank construction, since it is a representative of the MBT class. Those. in the presence of restrictions on weight and dimensions in it reached certain indicators. Merkava, on the other hand, is a rather archaic tank from the point of view of tank construction, but it is a good example for the specific task for which it was created.
    1. merkava-2bet
      merkava-2bet April 2 2018 17: 42
      +2
      First of all, I personally do not prove that the Merkava tank is the best in the world, but I refute myths, rumors and tales.
      Why did you get the idea that the Merkava-4 tank is archaic, a good tank with very great combat experience. But there are a lot of questions about the Armat tank, and not bile and contempt, I, as a military man with 18 years of military experience, are interested in the technical data of the Armat tank, but they are secret and that’s understandable, but it’s somehow not rational to guess on coffee grounds.
      1. Conserp
        Conserp April 2 2018 20: 52
        0
        Quote: merkava-2bet
        me as a military man with 18 years of military experience

        Who, with a writing culture like a mentally retarded child, will take you seriously?
      2. Cresta999
        Cresta999 April 3 2018 14: 31
        0
        It is archaic only from the point of view of tank construction. I do not question the effectiveness of the tank in the Israeli army. It is archaic because all the solutions on it are old, and the degree of protection is achieved by increasing the mass, and not due to new technological solutions. It's like American cars - do you want more power? Let's do it. Here you have an engine with a volume of two times more.
        1. merkava-2bet
          merkava-2bet April 3 2018 15: 37
          +1
          Again, not understanding you, you are saying that everything on the tank is bad and old.
          The world's first production tank with modular protection (Merkava-3 and above)
          The world's first serial tank with digital SLA and navigation (Merkava-3 Baz and above)
          The world's first production tank with a KAZ Meil ​​Ruach and a broadband integration system for all branches of the army, moreover, they passed a combat test (Merkava-4,4 Bet, 4 Mem)
          Well, and now the main thing, you say that protection is achieved at the expense of only the mass of armor, not only.
          In Israel, the life of a soldier is an unshakable axiom, damn it with weight.
          Yes, the Merkava-3 tank Baz Dor Dalet fully weighs 80 tons, and that continues to serve and fight.
          And here is a photo of the dimensions of the T-14 Armata and T-90A tanks (48 tons), and I won’t believe that the weight of the T-14 Armata is 50-53 tons.
          1. Cresta999
            Cresta999 April 3 2018 19: 16
            0
            Could you quote me in the place where I wrote "badly"? Thanks in advance.
          2. Conserp
            Conserp April 4 2018 00: 38
            0
            Quote: merkava-2bet
            And here is a photo of the dimensions of the T-14 Armata and T-90A tanks (48 tons), and I won’t believe that the weight of the T-14 Armata is 50-53 tons.

            The illiterate strikes back!

            The picture is not on that scale. T-14 without mounted armor, trawl or bulldozer weighs less than 50 tons. Due to ignorance, you do not know and do not understand the theory of a tank.
          3. Alex X
            Alex X April 4 2018 03: 57
            +1
            And here is a photo of the dimensions of the T-14 Armata and T-90A tanks (48 tons), and I won’t believe that the weight of the T-14 Armata is 50-53 tons.


            The external dimensions of the T-14 do not specify an armored volume. So nothing is clear to your picture.
          4. Alex X
            Alex X April 4 2018 04: 31
            +1
            Yes, the Merkava-3 tank Baz Dor Dalet fully weighs 80 tons, and that continues to serve and fight.


            Where it can move. But on other TVDs, for example, in Eastern Europe, he will not be able to fight. Ground pressure of more than 1.1 kg / cm2 (4th Merkava) - plus buildup due to poor weight distribution - is too different (for the 4th Leo - 0.83, T-90 - 0.85). Therefore, no one can protect.
            Tanks are called upon to save the lives of not only their crews, but also of all the other participants in the hostilities. Moreover, even when it is impossible to evade the battle (and not with the partisans in ambush), no matter how much one would like. :)
            1. merkava-2bet
              merkava-2bet April 4 2018 05: 20
              +2
              plus swing due to poor weight distribution
              What did you ride on Merkava, buildup, where did you get such data from? Merkava-3 Baz at a speed of 30 km / h on a gravel puts a series of 3 BOPS shells at a distance of 2300 meters, like two fingers on asphalt, he shot, rocking, funny.
            2. merkava-2bet
              merkava-2bet April 4 2018 20: 33
              +1
              Where it can move. But on other TVDs, for example, in Eastern Europe, he will not be able to fight. Ground pressure of more than 1.1 kg / cm2 (4th Merkava) - plus buildup due to poor weight distribution - is too different (for the 4th Leo - 0.83, T-90 - 0.85).
              You tell the creators-Panthers, Tigers, Royal Tigers, Yagdtigers, IS-2 and IS-3, and ISU-152, they were there, and that, any tank and generally any ground transport can get stuck, and what not to do their.
          5. Alex X
            Alex X April 4 2018 04: 37
            +2
            For the T-14, the dimensions of the turret do not specify the armored volume - due to uninhabitedness. So to judge the weight of such a picture is impossible.
            1. merkava-2bet
              merkava-2bet April 4 2018 16: 22
              0
              You seriously, an uninhabited tower does not mean that it is light, so the saved weight goes to ammunition, armor, and other systems, and all this is also a lot.
      3. Alex X
        Alex X April 4 2018 03: 42
        +1
        What makes you think that the Merkava-4 tank is archaic, a good tank with a lot of combat experience.


        But who argues with this, Lord! The conversation that he is good is not everywhere, but on a specific theater and against specific threats.

        But there are a lot of questions about the Armat tank,


        Lots of. In my opinion, he does not pull on a more or less universal tank. I don’t think that he will successfully pass the tests and go into the series - except for sale. This thing is not for war, but for the arms trade. Like Javelin, by the way. Yes, and the F-35, too. :)
        Merkava - yes, a tank for war. But not any, but counterguerrilla, and in the conditions of the Middle East. If not to say - Israel and the adjacent territories. There is nothing derogatory in this. But why pull an owl on a globe?
    2. The comment was deleted.
  37. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet April 2 2018 17: 59
    +1
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    And yet, how many Merkava tanks were destroyed during the period from 1982 to now 2018, namely, hundreds that were destroyed, not wrecked,no more than 50 tanks, and this number includes non-combat losses (as was the case in 1982 in Lebanon, when several tanks fell into the abyss, or with me in 2001 in the Ramat Golan, when the driver was blinded by the sun and drove onto the ramp with great speed and flew down, the tank was decommissioned.)
  38. rytik32
    rytik32 April 2 2018 18: 18
    0
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    After the hit, a commission worked, they combed the entire territory, and found the debris and the tail of the rocket, there was a laser coordinator, a tube IR tracer, plus the absence of control wires, of all ATRAs only Cornet had such a system

    Well let it be a cornet. Although according to Lebanese data, they had a few cornets. And according to ours - there was no https://vpk-news.ru/sites/default/files/pdf/issue
    _151.pdf
  39. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet April 2 2018 20: 15
    +1
    Quote: Alex X
    A cumulative stream is just a cumulative stream. Hit-not hit something substantial. It's like a PTR bullet. :) Or do you believe in a bike about "pressure"?
    The driver sits to the left of the engine. Those. the engine protects it only from falling into the starboard side. But not in front, and neither on the left nor on the top. The crew in the MTB tower does not protect against the kuma that fell into the hull.

    [b] [/ b] Regarding kuma, you tell this to new charges from the lining of the cumulative charge using tantalum-molybdenum and depleted uranium, because of their high pyrophoric effect.
    1. Alex X
      Alex X April 4 2018 03: 31
      +1
      Andrey, the pyrophoric effect in the sense of defeat is achieved when the mass of the pyrophoric substance is large enough. Like a scrap from depleted uranium.
      Honestly, I have never heard that tantalum and molybdenum have pronounced pyrophoric properties. They are at the iron level. :)

      As for the "lining of the cumulative charge" - firstly, how much this metal is there, and secondly, Americans everywhere pop their variants of cumulative shells - at least in tanks, even in Javelins. Well, you can’t admit that Abrams has only anti-tank shells + useless shrapnel. Not solid. :)

      The fact that MTB was carried forward and sideways not to protect the crew is so obvious to any sane person that it’s even strange that you argue on this topic. Why repeat the stupid propaganda intended for the humanities, intellectuals, lackeys and donkeys?
      1. merkava-2bet
        merkava-2bet April 4 2018 03: 49
        0
        Well, you can’t admit that Abrams has only anti-tank shells + useless shrapnel. Not solid. :)
        [/ b] [b] I don’t understand what for what?
        1. Alex X
          Alex X April 4 2018 05: 01
          0
          In addition, they started a strange conversation about the “pyromorphic tantalum-molybdenum lining” of cumulative shells. :) This is in the stream of conversations, as propaganda is trying to make something “universally-striking” out of kuma.
      2. merkava-2bet
        merkava-2bet April 4 2018 04: 51
        0
        The fact that MTB was carried forward and sideways not to protect the crew is so obvious to any sane person that it’s even strange that you argue on this topic. Why repeat the stupid propaganda intended for the humanities, intellectuals, lackeys and donkeys?[/B]
        [b] Firstly, I don’t argue with anyone here, but I’m trying to explain where lies or truth are, you are trying to believe rumors, like there is corton or textolite here. I don’t prove that I am strong in nuclear reactors, since I didn’t work for them, but in Merkava tanks I can share info.
        1. Alex X
          Alex X April 4 2018 05: 07
          0
          I didn’t say a word about cardboard or textolite. :) I read your posts precisely because you can share info on Merkava.
          But this does not mean that I will even listen to you if you begin to talk about the front-side mount of the MTB for the "protection of the crew." Because this is obvious (for an engineer, not for a journalist :)) nonsense. Or then, in your opinion, the T-64 was created as a "tank destroyer." This is not so - with all due respect to your knowledge in relation to the exploitation of the Merkav (but not in the field of trade in them :))
  40. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet April 2 2018 20: 16
    +1
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    Quote: Alex X
    A cumulative stream is just a cumulative stream. Hit-not hit something substantial. It's like a PTR bullet. :) Or do you believe in a bike about "pressure"?
    The driver sits to the left of the engine. Those. the engine protects it only from falling into the starboard side. But not in front, and neither on the left nor on the top. The crew in the MTB tower does not protect against the kuma that fell into the hull.

    Regarding kuma, you tell this to new charges from the lining of the cumulative charge with the use of tantalum-molybdenum and depleted uranium, because of their high pyrophoric effect.

  41. rytik32
    rytik32 April 3 2018 09: 24
    0
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    And who told you such crap

    said the professor of MSTU. N.E. Bauman, Director of Science, Steel Research Institute Valery Grigoryan, working on the protection of armored vehicles from the distant Soviet times and on armature inclusive:
    “DZ of the third type does not use explosives at all, their action is based on the energy properties of the materials used (polycarbonate, polyurethane, silicone, etc.), and the side effects of such systems are minimal. Therefore, they are primarily used on low-protection equipment, for example, "Hybrid armor. As an independent type of defense, this type of DZ was used on Israeli tanks Merkava-III and Merk-va-IV, where it is made in the form of plexiglass screens with a thickness of 100 mm."
    1. merkava-2bet
      merkava-2bet April 4 2018 13: 57
      +1
      This professor personally told you or suggested, since not only me but also the high-ranking officers do not know the exact composition of the armor, composition, etc.
    2. merkava-2bet
      merkava-2bet April 4 2018 15: 58
      +1
      "DZ of the third type does not use explosives at all, their action is based on the energy properties of the materials used (polycarbonate, polyurethane, silicone, etc.), and the side effects of such systems are minimal.
      Do you seriously believe this when an ATGM arrives at the tank, and this is from 5 kg or more of explosives, what is the minimum damage to the tank, and it doesn’t matter what kind of DZ, it blows up so that my mother doesn’t grieve. The best defense is when you don’t get into you, and how many NIIs work, so that the damage is minimal for the tank, and not for the living creatures of any living creature including infantry, the same nonsense that hangs noodles on the ears in powerlessness to solve the problem, you need to destroy what flies into the tank at a distance, that is, KAZ.
  42. rytik32
    rytik32 April 3 2018 09: 38
    0
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    And his armor is weak, not just a 125 mm gun, but the old D-10T will pierce it

    The S-tank has a VLD armor of 60 mm 78 degrees.
    This is even better than Merkava 3. There is generally cardboard
    1. merkava-2bet
      merkava-2bet April 3 2018 12: 13
      +1
      And what does Merkava-3 have to do with it, I answered about only Merkava-4. The scheme you conducted does not correspond to reality. I have never seen this, even in special documents, but here you can see Chinese. Then why do not you give another photo.

      By the way, in the last photo, Israel Tal himself and the father of the Swedish tank STRV-103 Sven Berge.
      1. merkava-2bet
        merkava-2bet April 3 2018 13: 50
        +2
        And in the 1993 photo, the Merkava-3 Ramah tank, the very first model.
  43. rytik32
    rytik32 April 3 2018 14: 08
    0
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    The scheme you conducted does not correspond to reality.

    The scheme is based on Chinese documentation, which surfaced recently (read Tarasenko, courage). The Chinese have these data appeared when Israel wanted Merkava 3 to sell them.
    Do you have another scheme?
    In your photo, as I understand it, the hinged windshield reservation module?
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. merkava-2bet
      merkava-2bet April 3 2018 17: 40
      +1
      Quote: rytik32
      Quote: merkava-2bet
      The scheme you conducted does not correspond to reality.

      The scheme is based on Chinese documentation, which surfaced recently (read Tarasenko, courage). The Chinese have these data appeared when Israel wanted Merkava 3 to sell them.
      Do you have another scheme?
      In your photo, as I understand it, the hinged windshield reservation module?

      For a general understanding of what armor is, on Israeli armored vehicles, find the differences between the same armored vehicles.
      TBTR Namer
      Tank Merkava-2 Dalet

      Tank Merkava-3 Baz Dor Dalet
  44. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet April 3 2018 15: 03
    +1
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    Firstly, for the first time I hear that they wanted to sell the Merkava-3 tank to someone, especially to China. The first talk about exporting the Merkava-4 tank after the Second Lebanon, where the tank showed itself very well, but there are still political nuances. China bought some technology, but no tank, the USA will block, their engine.
    As for the schemes, even if they were, it’s a secret, the Merkava-3 tank is still in service.
    1. Alex X
      Alex X April 4 2018 03: 14
      0
      A couple of years ago, there were intentions to sell fifty Merkav to Singapore. Apparently, it was broken, but it was reported that the talks had gone far. They even wrote about a settled case.
  45. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet April 4 2018 04: 27
    +2
    Quote: Alex X
    A couple of years ago, there were intentions to sell fifty Merkav to Singapore. Apparently, it was broken, but it was reported that the talks had gone far. They even wrote about a settled case.

    You are not careful and jump from side to side, read what I write carefully.
    The question was about Merkava-3 (three), at the expense of selling it to someone, I replied, I didn’t hear about it. You jump right there, but Merkava-4, and she, moreover, I answered above about I heard that. And you behave like a child, I answer your every question with reason and photos or diagrams, you don’t even want to go online and just check or read, like tantalum is not molybdenum or uranium. You’ll start off topic carry the blizzard.
    1. Alex X
      Alex X April 4 2018 04: 49
      0
      The question was about Merkava-3 (three), at the expense of selling it to someone, I replied, I didn’t hear about it. You jump right there, but Merkava-4, and she, moreover, I answered above about what hear.


      Maybe they tried to sell to someone - they tried 4-ku. As a child, it’s you, with your arguments “it’s a secret, the Merkava-3 tank is still in service.” In other words, the protection of the tank (in the sense of the size and thickness of the armor) is no secret.

      I answer your every question with reason and with photos or diagrams


      But am I - not argumentative, or what? Well, you are impudent. :)

      You don’t even want to go online and just check or read, like tantalum is not that molybdenum or uranium.


      You mentioned tantalum and molybdenum in relation to pyrophoricity. Do you doubt that the pyrophoricity of tantalum and molybdenum (and tungsten) is about the same as that of iron? In vain.
      1. merkava-2bet
        merkava-2bet April 4 2018 05: 03
        +1
        That the word “secret of the composition of the armor” does not suit you, you have seen the armored modules, their thickness and dimensions, and all this should be limited to, alas and ah.
        Regarding the pyrophoricity of metals, these are claims to scientists and engineers, they equip them with charges and experience them.
        1. Alex X
          Alex X April 4 2018 05: 14
          0
          That the word “secret of the composition of the armor” does not suit you, you have seen the armored modules, their thickness and dimensions, and all this should be limited to, alas and ah.


          I have nothing to say about the thickness of the armor. I said that attempts to sell the 4th Merkava are known. As for the 3rd - I have not heard, I'm not an arms dealer, but why not?
          Your arguments are strange - Taiwan (the strategic ally of the USA) is also the Chinese. :) This, of course, does not mean that I claim that the Merkavas tried to sell to Taiwan.

          Regarding the pyrophoricity of metals, these are claims to scientists and engineers, they equip them with charges and experience them.


          And here are the claims? I have a replica in your direction - since you mentioned the "pyromorphic tantalum-molybdenum facing" of the godfathers.
          1. merkava-2bet
            merkava-2bet April 4 2018 05: 28
            +1
            Your arguments are strange - Taiwan (the strategic ally of the USA) is also the Chinese. :) This, of course, does not mean that I claim that the Merkavas tried to sell to Taiwan.[/B]
            You already decide, either Singapore or Taiwan, and in general, as I understand the epic of Merkava-3 was with mainland China, China. [B]
  46. Des10
    Des10 April 4 2018 12: 19
    +1
    And after all - done!
    And not some, but his own - a tank.
    Bravo.
    1. Conserp
      Conserp April 5 2018 22: 20
      0
      Just think, at the level of the 50s - but independent!
  47. Des10
    Des10 April 4 2018 12: 32
    +2
    I read the discussion - smile - here, after all, one was on the tank, the other did not even see from Dahl, but it has an opinion.
    1. Conserp
      Conserp April 5 2018 22: 18
      0
      To evaluate fried eggs, you don’t need to be a chicken.
  48. merkava-2bet
    merkava-2bet April 4 2018 14: 07
    +1
    Quote: Alex X
    In addition, they started a strange conversation about the “pyromorphic tantalum-molybdenum lining” of cumulative shells. :) This is in the stream of conversations, as propaganda is trying to make something “universally-striking” out of kuma.

    Regarding the cumulative jet, you shouldn’t neglect it like that, if you’ve got into something serious and only then wait for trouble, modern kumas are already far superior to kinetics, and it’s the kum that is very dangerous for a tank, at least in mass, that's what I’m talking about wanted to say in previous comments.
    1. rytik32
      rytik32 April 4 2018 18: 26
      0
      What do you mean?
      That’s ours removed the godfather from the automatic loader.
      The Americans do not have a clean kuma, but have a universal shell.
      When breaking, a crowbar strikes everything inside with red-hot fragments of itself and armor.
      A godfather can pass 30 cm from a person and not harm him at all.
      1. merkava-2bet
        merkava-2bet April 4 2018 19: 36
        +1
        You again did not understand me, as well as the process of breaking through the armor of the Kuma.
        The cumulative charge can be affected in three ways.
        The first is the destruction, as, by any means, KAZ, matyuki and curses.
        Second, the active effect is already on the cumulative pestle (stream) -DZ, armor of a semi-active type.
        The third is the defocusing and absorption (absorption) of cumulative pest materials with low molecular weight (ceramics, polymers, etc.) or high density (lead, uranium, etc.), and often they are combined, as on Abrams.
        At the moment, none of the three options gives a 100% guarantee, so they are combined, as a second and third option, and only recently the first.
        The fact is that the cumulative pestle even from copper is heated to 400 ° C, its mother is the hydrodynamics of quasi-liquid substances.
        Regarding the fact that the godfather will fly 30 cm and there will be nothing, you want to experience it for yourself, I can be a naughty thing for the sake of experiment.
        1. merkava-2bet
          merkava-2bet April 4 2018 19: 41
          +1
          And here are a couple of schemes for visual aid.
          1. Alex X
            Alex X April 6 2018 03: 12
            0
            Andrew,

            You are still a soldier, not an engineer. :)
            Kuma is a charge of a brisant substance, about 1.5 kg, of a cunning form. Therefore, it is important to know the thickness of the armor in order to evaluate the striking armor exposure. If the armor is thick, then the channel, pressed through by a cumulative jet, is long and thin, and a detonation wave of explosives does not pass through it. And the damaging factor is reduced only to the jet itself (small diameter). In your picture, the armor is thin, the channel is short (plus destruction of the armor in the area of ​​direct contact). Hence the strong (relatively) armor exposure.

            Your arguments are generally strange. The same buildup. Wagi links to your experience is a joke. You seem to be sitting in a tower, i.e. close to the center of the "swing".
            As for shooting - what does "series" mean? What is the interval between shots? In addition, the gun (unlike the case :)) is stabilized. You have not seen the video, how a tray with a full glass of beer is mounted on Leo’s cannon, and he spits 20-30 kilometers per hour on the ground without spilling a drop?

            Here, I found the link.
            https://www.popmech.ru/weapon/232500-video-tank-v
            ezet-na-dule-kruzhku-piva-ne-prolivaya-ni-kapli /
            1. merkava-2bet
              merkava-2bet April 6 2018 05: 28
              0
              Stop, you again start to jump from side to side. You wrote that the tank has a buildup, that is, with movement, rubbish. The Merkava-3 and 4 tanks have the largest total track rollers in the world with 600 mm, not static and dynamic, but general The suspension itself is individual spring with a built-in paddle hydraulic shock absorber in each hub of the balancer, on the first and last roller of the double-acting hydraulic shock absorber, and on each balancer there is a buffer stop made of polyurethane, and this is only Merkava-3, on the four more improved. That is done everything is for minimal buildup as you say. There is still such an oscillation of the tank after the shot, it is significantly less than that of Merkava-2, since the tank gun mounted on the Merkava-3 tank, although licensed, was very much modernized in particular in recoil systems .
              What is my experience, or rather combat experience, a joke?
              A series, there are a lot of meanings, it all depends on the task, my case that I described was the accuracy check after a cold shooting, three BOPS at intersecting courses with the aim, when shooting a tower in the side of the course, the interval between shots is no more than 10 seconds, and then from the place three more BOPS on target at a range of 2600 meters.
              Therefore, be more objective, I do not always understand you, maybe because I am an Israeli.
        2. Alex X
          Alex X April 6 2018 03: 30
          0
          Quote: merkava-2bet
          Regarding the fact that the godfather will fly 30 cm and there will be nothing, you want to experience it for yourself, I can be a naughty thing for the sake of experiment.


          As if such experiments were not carried out. But the people are dark, gray and loves evil fables. :)

          https://topwar.ru/20498-esche-odin-kumulyativnyy-
          mif.html
      2. merkava-2bet
        merkava-2bet April 5 2018 22: 50
        +1
        Any cumulative charge has initially two damage factors: cumulative and high-explosive, even if the body is made of plastic, and as you say [that they do not have a clean kuma, but only universal], the fact is that the cumulative shell must be shot from the tank’s gun and reach the target as a whole, when fired from a tank gun, overloads can reach up to 10000g, so consider how much material should be used and what thickness to withstand it, if you use steel, you can get an additional function in the form of fragments. And it’s correct to call [cumulative high-explosive fragmentation tracer]
      3. merkava-2bet
        merkava-2bet April 6 2018 01: 42
        +1
        Who told you that they removed the cumulative shells from the ammunition of Russian tanks, on the contrary, they are now working a lot in the field of tank ammunition, for example, tandem cumulative and shrapnel-shrapnel shells, as well as guided shells.
        Regarding the fact that sub-caliber shells hit with incandescent fragments of themselves and armor, this is partly true for homogeneous armor and, to a lesser extent, for heterogeneous armor with dynamic protection, it is multilayer armor that sharply reduces armor damage, and even more with DZ.
        Therefore, depleted uranium began to be used; it gave a lot of advantages compared to tungsten.
        First, the cheapness and affordability of tungsten.
        The second manufacturing technology differs little from steel, the melting point of uranium is 1400 * C, that of tungsten is almost three times higher, and besides, it is a strategic material of the highest category.
        But most importantly, it is an armor-like lesion that is better than that of tungsten, pyrophoric and high toxicity, accompanying an increase in damage within the object, and not radioactivity, that’s nonsense.
        The third, uranium self-sharpening of uranium, increases armor penetration.
        All this in aggregate sharply increased stability and effectiveness against multilayer combined armor and DZ, this is the main reason for the use of depleted uranium, and not a bike, as if the United States wastes reactor waste.
  49. rytik32
    rytik32 April 5 2018 12: 46
    0
    Quote: merkava-2bet
    The fact is that the cumulative pestle even from copper is heated to 400 ° C, its mother is the hydrodynamics of quasi-liquid substances.

    And when welding iron 1500 degrees. And nothing, the welders have not yet died out from falling droplets of iron :)
    They rightly wrote to you that there is too little metal in the cumulative stream to do a lot of trouble. A drop of metal on the tanker's clothes will do nothing.
    1. merkava-2bet
      merkava-2bet April 5 2018 19: 17
      0
      You again do not fully understand the process of cumulative impact on the armor, once again look at the schemes that I posted.
      And nothing, the welders have not yet died out from droplets of iron:) [b] [/ b]
      Seriously, the speed of the kuma is from 8000 m / s or more, and the fragments, albeit much less, are also dangerous, which is why they use the lining of the back of the armor from Kevlar to reduce the armor damage of the crew.
    2. merkava-2bet
      merkava-2bet April 5 2018 23: 21
      +1
      The process of penetrating armor from the point of view of hydrodynamics can be described as washing out the armor due to overpressure (of the order of 1000000 or more atmospheres) and the cum itself, or rather the pestle acts as an active penetrator, a rough example, sandblasting any surface where the abrasive acts as an active element, but in addition to the abrasive itself, there are still waste products of the surface that they process, and therefore they wear armor during work, here is an example, albeit a rough exposure to fragments when the armor is damaged by a cumulative jet.
  50. SASHA OLD
    SASHA OLD April 9 2018 16: 57
    +1
    cool tank, probably great for its "habitat", the principle of "main survival" adopted from the use of the English Centurions - they were very pleased with him at the time