Frag Out! Magazine
Issue link: https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1365706
and cover aside, the armor proper would be 15-20 cm thick. The front part is formed by wedge-shaped modules where NERA layers are placed at the top and at the bottom. These are not so thick. But thanks to the great angle at which they are placed, the relative thickness for these is close to ca. 400 mm. The vertical sides of the Merkava Mk 3 MBT are a sign suggesting that the protection elements were designed to face conventional battlefield threats. They have not been designed with irregular warfare in mind. The rear portion of the turret niche still used slat armor, with a large basket surrounding the turret gap and chains and spheres hanging underneath. The hull underwent several relevant changes as well. The design layout has remained unchanged, but the individual solutions were different. It was also made 457 mm longer. The front part of the turret has remained unchanged when placed alongside Merkava Mk 2B. The engine cover plate and the front top armor of the hull also remain identical. Meanwhile, the area behind the driver's seat has been reinforced by two side-by-side modules, each prob- ably featuring a single NERA layer. The side portions of the hull, over the tracks, also received special armor alongside the driver's compartment and the compartment under the turret, and also the hull ammunition stor- age. The heavy ballistic aprons have also been fitted with a similar armor layout. The hull's bottom structure was changed - the fuel tank placed there was removed, as it turned out that IED energy could be transferred from the bottom deflector to the plate at the bottom of the crew com- partment, via the fuel tank. The fuel tank was relocated to the rear part of the hull, replacing the CRBN system that has been placed in the turret, and the batteries - now placed on the left side of the hull. Therefore, the ammunition storage protection was reinforced from the back. Numerous smaller adjustments and enhancements were also introduced, alongside the ones listed above. Assessing the protection levels provided by Merkava Mk 3 and Mk 3B is a challenging task. On one hand, the protection levels have been im- proved, when compared to the Mk 2B variant. Nonetheless, the armor was still much thinner than in the case of the western MBTs - Abrams or Leopard. The special armor used in the case of Mk 3 seems to be less advanced than the Western-European Burlington armor derivatives. One VEHICLES