Frag Out! Magazine
Issue link: https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1333129
Photo source Photo source Photo source Photo source tion levels have remained unchanged, but NERA armor appeared in the case of the 2B variant, to a limited extent though. Extra "asymmetrical" protection was also important. The mobility was a bit worsened, not improved. How- ever, the MBT became easier to maintain and it had a greater range. The firepower domain also went through major enhancements. The implemen- tation of a thermal imager (as of 1985), and the new Matador 2 fire control system (Mk 2A, 1984), greatly enhanced the accuracy of the gun when used on the move, and against the moving targets. The system was also a decisive improvement in the area of combat activities conducted in bad weather, or at night. Can we assume that Merkava Mk.2B caught up with the best NATO MBTs in 1985 (Leopard 2A4, Challenger 2, M1IP)? Was it on par with the So- viet designs (T-80U, T-80B)? No. Yet again, a hypothesis as such would not be confirmed. Merkava has been less agile and mobile when compared to its western counterparts - the difference was really significant when one took the Leopard 2, and Abrams into account. When placed alongside the Soviet designs: turboshaft-powered T-80U, and the legacy T-80B; the comparison had a similar result. Mk 2B protection levels have been improved, when it comes to sabot and HEAT rounds, the armor was still worse than the Ob. 219AS and Ob. 219 RW featuring the Kontakt 1 ERA. The protection was also provided in an angle range two times smaller for the frontal portion of the vehicle, as opposed to the Soviet MBT designs. The only area where the Merkava 2B was superior was its crew protection capability after the armor was penetrated. This, however, increased the weight by 20 tonnes. When compared to the Western designs, the protection levels against sabot-rounds were similar, or 10% lower, but the above, yet again, concerned angles of ca. 20° in relation to the longitudinal axis of the turret and the hull (not +/- 30° - as in case of Leopard 2, or Abrams MBTs). Merkava was offering signifi- cantly lower protection levels against the HEAT rounds as well. Currently, as some of the Western intelligence has been declassified, the Leopard 2, and Challenger 1 turrets, at angles of +/- 30°, offered protection levels equiva- lent to 700 mm of RHA vs HEAT. Abrams, meanwhile, offered protection of 750 mm of RHA (against HEAT). Merkava Mk 2B, in the best-case scenario, should be able to provide protection of 600-650 mm within an angle range of +/- 20°. The disproportion in case of the hull was less significant, with NATO vehicles offering protection of 580-700 mm. Here the Mk 2B started to catch up with them. The weight, however, was the price to pay. Firepower as- sessment has been less challenging though. The Merkava simply could not have been as effective, when attacking moving targets, when on the move, like the M1, or Leopard 2A4 MBTs. However, the Matador 2 fire control sys- tem has been a sign of major progress. The lack of hunter-killer capability similar to the one we could have witnessed in Leopard 2 has been a major disadvantage. The lack of stabilized commander optic was a major capabil- ity gap here. However, it could be said that the fire control system of Mk 2B was superior when compared to the Soviet T-80BV and T-80Us. Despite their good fire control systems, the T-80 series had no thermal imagers and lacked a comprehensive sensor package. This has been a major advantage Merkava had over the T-72B, and the legacy T-72A - these designs had no fire control system as such. An identical advantage could have been witnessed when Merkava was compared to the vehicles operated by the Israeli neighbors. Merkava Mk 2B was far superior and offered major advantages when placed against the Syrian, Jordan, or Egyptian armor. It was globally advantageous, without any exception in the performance figures, or capabilities. This trend could not have been reversed, even by the Syrian T-72As procured from the USSR, starting from 1982, in a quantity of 300 examples. Even though the second generation of Merkava was not a worthy rival for the latest NATO and Soviet MBTs, it was superior when placed against the local rivals. www.fragoutmag.com