Frag Out! Magazine
Issue link: https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1407425
launched from RPG-7 also lacked effectiveness. The IDF's armor losses were brought down to zero. Wire-activated IEDs were the only serious threat that the Merkavas were facing. This made it possible to patrol and control the contested areas and to conduct more aggressive offensive maneuvers. Fur- ther minimization of losses among the infantry has also become possible, as the troops on foot did not have to protect the flanks of the MBTs engaging the enemy. Summing it up - the Merkava Mk 4 protection systems are seriously effective, but mainly thanks to the second-ever mass-manufactured hard-kill protec- tion system (Soviet Drozd was the first of this class). The system may be however ineffective against a coordinated attack of ATGMs launched in a sal- vo. This is a capability that has been made available for modern ATGMs, such as Kornet, 9M123 Khrizantema, new variants of Hellfire, or Brimstone. But in the case of 95% of the ATGMs used now, there is no reliable way to properly coordinate a salvo that could overcome the active protection system. Thus, the Merkava's shield with the Trophy system is stronger than the Hamas's or Hezbollah's, or even the regular neighbor armies' swords. Solid armor is an- other ace up the Israeli MBT's sleeve. It protects the vehicle effectively from HE rounds - especially at the front. One of the serious doubts emerges when it comes to the protection of the armor modules from sabot rounds. It can be said, with a high degree of certainty, that the current solution has not been optimized within that scope. It does not necessarily mean that it is a bad, or insufficient design, considering the existing APFDS-T ammunition stock of the Israeli neighbors. Alternative protection measures for Merkava Mk 4 could have been developed as well, with conventional tank battles in mind. MOBILITY Heavy MBTs always suffer from mobility issues. However, the new variant of Merkava was enhanced in all essential departments, compared to the previous variants. The MBT is powered by a 12-cylinder GD883 engine, with a power output of 1500HP. It forms a power pack with a hydromechanical Renk RK325 gearbox, with five gears available for both front, and reverse movement. The powerpack, as a whole, weighs 5 tonnes. The Mk 4's drive- train is an evolution of the predecessor, with individual wheels suspension and double springs. The travel range is very good - 300 mm up and down, from the zero position. As a result, the new MBT has better off-road capa- bilities, superior when compared to numerous lighter vehicles. All wheels feature hydraulic dampers, the front and two rear pairs of the wheels also feature hydraulic bending limiters. Despite the higher weight (the Mk 4 is 2 tonnes heavier when compared to Mk 3D), the Mk 4's mobility has been greatly enhanced. The vehicle, weighing more than 70 tonnes, has a pow- er-to-weight ratio of 22 HP per tonne. Its German-style powerpack with an American engine can be viewed as a pinnacle achievement when it comes to the drivetrain. Thus, Merkava Mk 4, weighing 70 tonnes, has superior off-road capabilities, when compared to the 42-44 tonne MBTs belonging to the T-72 family. Even though Abrams, Leopard 2, or Leclerc remain more maneuvera- ble, the gap between them and Merkava Mk 4 is narrower. The latest variants of the aforesaid western MBTs suffer from using the old power packs, with the growing weight of the MBTs - from 55.5 up to 64.5 tonnes for Leopard 2A7VM, or 68.5 tonnes for Leopard 2A7A1 featuring the Trophy system. A similar problem pertains to the Abrams MBTs - the M1A2 SEPv3 weighs 66.7 tonnes. www.fragoutmag.com