Frag Out! Magazine
Issue link: https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1308154
The source of the photo The source of the photo The source of the photo The source of the photo bocharged air-cooled diesel engine. It was a development of the engine used in the M60A1 MBT. Parts commonality was said to be exceeding 75%. The engine offered a power output of 960 HP at 2400 RPM, with maximum torque of 2,975 Nm. The power goes through the CD-850-6BX hydrokinetic gearbox that features a hydrokinetic transmission, epicycloidal gearbox, and differ- ential-based turning mechanisms. The gearbox, together with the engine, form a power-pack weighing almost 4 tonnes. However, the power-pack, as a whole, can be easily replaced in less than an hour. The power-to-weight ratio for Mk 1 is not very good - at 15.33 HP/tonne (12,28 kW/tonne) it al- lowed the tank to accelerate from 0 to 32 kph in 13 seconds. Furthermore, the maximum range when using hardened roads was not impressive - 400 km, even though Merkava carried 900 liters of fuel. In rough terrain, the range went down to 90-110 km. The suspension, however, was a work of art. It was based on six dual-blade 790 mm road wheels, with a rubber cover, on each side. Each of the wheels had an individual shock-absorbing system with spiral springs. The suspension can bend up to 210 mm, the complete vertical travel range is defined as 380 mm. This was very good in 1979. Merkava features all-steel tracks. The heavy, yet effective suspension allowed Merka- va to move around more efficiently, being more agile than the performance sheet suggested. The Israeli Chariot was able to go over ditches that were 3 m wide or over 1 m vertical walls. 70% slopes also were not a major problem. It was also possible to traverse a 38% slope. The MBT could wade in water as deep as 1.4 m. Even though the mobility was inferior when Merkava was compared to Leop- ard 2 and M1 Abrams, the Israeli MBT was superior when compared to the Soviet MBTs. Only the turboshaft T-80 could be considered to be better than the Israeli MBT, in that department. However, the comparison to the T-72 family was not so clear. It takes the T-72 25 seconds to accelerate from 0 to 31.7 kph. T-55A acceleration from 0 to 20 kph is said to be at the level of 15.5 seconds. The same parameter for T-72A is defined as 11 seconds. T-72M1 accelerates from 0 to 20 kph in 13 seconds. T-72A total vertical suspension travel is 285 mm. Merkava's hydrokinetic transmission system allowed the MBT to rotate in one spot and it had also an ability to turn without losing the grip at virtually any speed. The T-72M1 could only turn, without losing its grip, at one speed in each gear. If the speed is exceeded, the tracks would lose grip or be damaged. Wheels could also suffer from damage. Conditions as such would also inflict more wear on the hydrokinetic transmission. The compar- ison of the engines is challenging. The W46 has not been a good solution. It was prone to faults, wear and it was an oil-spitting device. Compared to W46, the AVDS-1790-6A was playing in a whole other league. The replace- ment of the Merkava's power-pack took 90 minutes. The engine replacement procedure for T-72 lasted around 23 hours. The lighter Soviet tank offered a better range and strategic mobility. However, one should admit that despite weighing 20 t more, Merkava Mk 1 had the better off road capability of the two. And it had an incomparably lower failure rate. FIREPOWER The firepower issue can be divided between two subjects- the main gun and ammunition, and the fire control system. The Merkava FCS was basic and not sophisticated. It featured a digital ballistic computer that used just a few chunks of data: cross-wind, ambient temperature, MBT's speed, azimuthal turret movement, and distance to target measured with a glass, neodymi- um laser-rangefinder. The only advanced functionality allowed the gunner to compute a complete firing solution - placing the crosshairs over the enemy www.fragoutmag.com