Frag Out! Magazine
Issue link: https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1308154
though, that the turret shape easily made the APDS rounds ricochet. It is also clear how highly effective Burlington (NERA/NxRA) armor de- signs were. The British solution mentioned above, adopted in the Unit- ed States of America and Germany, created protection levels against HEAT rounds impossible to be obtained when other general means of protection were employed. Next, one needs to note that among the weapons listed, Syria and Egypt (Israel's neighbors) owned the 9M114 Malyutka ATGMs and 9M113 in the 1980s. Syrian HOT 1s were the best anti-tank weapon in the region. These were procured along with the Gazelle helicopters. Merkava Mk. 1 was very well protected from the older ATGMs and anti-tank grenade launchers - from the front. Syrian HOT 1 ATGM has been the only weap- on that could reliably neutralize the Israeli MBT, regardless of the hit spot. 115 mm T-62 gun and 100 mm T-55 gun have been among the best weapons firing tank rounds, used by the Israeli neighbors. 3BM6 and 3BM21 rounds were among the best ammunition used in the case of the T-62 MBTs. Meanwhile, 3BM8 rounds were the best available in the case of the T-55 MBT. The sabot rounds listed above had one common feature: they were more effective against vertically arranged armor, but extremely inefficient when used against inclined surfaces. The Merkava Mk 1 armor was hence optimally arranged to counteract such threats, at distances much shorter than 1 kilometer. The situation evolved when Syria procured 150 T-72 Ural main battle tanks, between the 1970s and 1980s. Along with these, the Syrians also procured mod- ern 3BM9 and 3BM15 sabot rounds. Although at a distance of 2,000 m this ammunition was ineffective, when used against the Merkava's front armor, at a distance below 1,000 m it was considered to be a certain threat. Both penetrators were able to go through inclined sur- faces - but not ones that one could find at the front of the Merkava's turret and hull. Nonetheless, the Merkava crews could have lost some of their confidence. At least, they could not have felt as safe as in case of fights against MBTs using the older 100 mm and 115 mm guns. One shall also remember that the sides of the hull and the turret (and the semi-circular castings at the base of the latter) could be penetrated by 115 mm and 125 mm sabot rounds at a distance beyond 1,500 m. One could assume then, that even though the protection levels of Mer- kava Mk 1 were not on par with the new generation NATO MBTs, or with the Soviet "triplets" (except for HEAT rounds protection in case of the hull) when placed against the anti-tank rounds used by the neigh- bors, the protection was good. Syrian HOT 1 ATGMs and 125 mm sabot rounds of the T-72s were among the only serious challenges for the Israeli "chariot". No perfect protection exists. The range of means that would be able to effectively incapacitate the Merkavas at a distance of 1 kilometer was much broader. Within the range extending beyond the angle of 30 degrees in relation to the longitudinal axis of the turret and the hull, most of the ATGMs and APFSDS rounds could be effectively employed against the Israeli MBT. Ultimately, it all boiled down to tac- tics and training. Here the Israeli crews dominated the region. MOBILITY Mobility has been the weakest point of the Merkava MBT. This was caused by the monstrous weight of that tank - more than 60t. Second- ly, the designers had no access to a good, high power diesel engine. The best that IDF could get was the US-made AVDS-1790-6A V12 tur- The source of the photo The source of the photo The source of the photo VEHICLES