While in basic training my Drill Sgts. told all of the recruits that the only tank that could match the M1A2 tank was Israeli's Merkava. Since leaving I have done some research and found that the two were similar in many ways. Which one would you rather have the M1A2 or the Merkava?
2006-09-04 17:18:22 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
The Abrams is by far the best tank in service, as far as operating as a tank. Its armor, fire accuracy, speed, and punch are first rate. The only advantage the Merkava holds over the Abrams is that it can hold a few additional troops, i.e. act as an armored personnel carrier or armored ambulance in a pinch. It has an armored cargo area to the rear.
2006-09-04 17:48:07 · answer #1 · answered by Charles D 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Merkava and the M1A2 are not completely the same because the Merkava is designed in the sense to give the crew a max of protection in a conflict in builded areas ( cities ) on the other side the M1A2 is build as a real MBT ( a good combination of protection, firepower and mobility )
I must say that your drill Sgt has to reconsider his statement because the Leopard 2A6 is more than a match for the M1A2. Witch is recently is proved in a evaluation test done by the Greek army where all the major tanks where present except the Merkava. The Leopard appeared with a big differences as the winner
2006-09-05 14:15:17 · answer #2 · answered by general De Witte 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I should choose the Merkava. In a nation with a lot of enemies surviving of the crew is essential. The Merkava is build around this idea. f.e. the engine if in the front so that driver Will not be hit in the first place. Well slooped armour.
Also you can leave the tank from behind in stead of climbing out. Ammunition reload is also quicker by this way. The armour also better placed. Simply the Merkava is a tank where the Israelis have done some thinking.
She uses also less fuel (one of the defaults of American tanks).
And if I compare with the Leopard II, this one can certainly match the M1A2. As already said, tests in Greece (and some other countries) proved that the Leopard was even better.
By the way most Israeli casualties weren't in the Merkava. As far as I know few were damaged even less destroyed. Mostly track damage (the weak point of all tanks.
2006-09-05 18:13:46 · answer #3 · answered by Rik 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I find the two very different. the only thing they share is the 120mm gun. The merkava use regular armor not composite like in the M1-A2. the merk's engine is in the front the crew in the back like an self propelled gun. The merk is slow it's fire control not quite up to M1-A2 standards but sufficient. the merk is has a regular diesel engine abrams a turbine. The leopard 2 and the challenger on the other hand are very comparable and the new French tank the le clerc has a longer ranged gun than the 120mm now in service. There tank has a superior fire control and comms and the armor is designed to be removed and upgraded when new armors are developed something no other tank can say.
2006-09-07 16:15:44 · answer #4 · answered by brian L 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The M1A2 has seen combat in Iraq. I don't know what is up with the assertion that it hasn't. I had the pleasure more than once of walking alongside one and getting roasted by the heat coming off that gas turbine engine.
The Merkava (especially the Merkava IV) was designed from the ground up to be ergonomic and responsive to upgrades. Engine in the front means better protection from the crew and a wealth of variants, from an ambulance to an APC/IFV. There was even talk of using the chassis to mount a 155mm gun for use as a self-propelled howitzer (it was, if I remember right, supposed to be called the "Hammer").
It has better tracks, a better array of smaller weapons for MOUT, and it's quite agile - even though it weighs more than the Abrams. Fire control and digitization are way up there, and the driver even has monitor arrays to give him 360 degree vision.
I'd rather have the Merkava besides me, but the M1A2 is more than adequate for the job, especially teamed with M2/M3s. The Israelis designed the Merkava to be able to fill a wide variety of roles, since their limited budget means they can't develop an IFV in parallel with the same features in a different chassis.
Only a nation that is constantly at war could field such an excellent platform.
2006-09-05 04:37:07 · answer #5 · answered by Nat 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The new M1A2 I don't think has ever seen battle, even in Iraq. If you recall, the 4th ID was off the coast of Turkey before the invasion and Turkey wouldn't let us land. During the Iraq invasion, all the US used was the M1A1, and we still kicked butt. The newer armor and commo on the A2 I think would outmatch anthing any other military force can provide.
2006-09-05 00:29:41 · answer #6 · answered by AirborneKappaSigma 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I'll take the M-1 .
The stabilized gun is great how ever the merkava is great for close in fighting such as Dunes and small hills
2006-09-05 00:22:04 · answer #7 · answered by Fatwa Freddie 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Weren't most of the Israeli casualties in the Merkava?
2006-09-05 00:20:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I am currently in Iraq and have seen the A2 in action, there is no other tank that could match its firepower, speed and crews.
A2 hands down!
2006-09-05 00:35:50 · answer #9 · answered by C0MS3C . 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The M1A2 HAS seen battle.
2006-09-05 00:51:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋