(I apologize for writing in English. I don't have a Russian keyboard and all English-Russia conversion programs are unreliable)
Танкисты любой страны катаются на той броне, на которую их посадили.
Нет у них свободы выбора.
Yes but in my knowledge of key engineers and figures in MANTAK (Tank design bureau), they were always listening to the soldiers on the ground, and always modified the tanks and vehicles to the needs of the soldiers.
I've recently read a book about Yehiam Herpez, an automotives engineers who designed the suspension systems, and he had visited frontline troops at least once or twice a week.
Как стартапы соотносятся с танковой школой? Уже как-то говорил, когда некоторые страны пилили Абрама, Лео и т80 у Вас получилась первая морковка. Согласен, 4 уже совсем другое, но говорить про мега защищенность во всех проекциях глупо. У неё масса не намного больше, чем у Абрамса, а у того хорошо прикрыт только лобик, сделайте выводы.
Different armor technologies. The Abrams has a significantly heavier armor. The Merkava 4 manages to put a lot more armor on the sides, rear, and top, as well as high thickness overall but maintain a lower weight. It's also important to note that the armor on the sides has a different construction than the front armor, and so does the top armor and rear, have all different construction.
У Абрамса при этом заброневой объем меньше. Предположу, что довольно значительно. Я уже раза три постил фото моделек М1 И Мк4 рядом.
Обратите внимание на разницу в высоте корпуса. В лобовой части. И прикиньте, сколько может весить полноценный лоб на Мк4 с уровнем стойкости хотя-бы как у НЛД М1.
I think these are out of scale. The hull of the Merkava is supposed to be 70cm shorter than the Abrams, but the Merkava appears to be slightly longer here. So I believe the scale of the Merkava is larger than it is for the Abrams.
The hull armor of the Merkava 4 only covers the UFP (Upper Plate), and it's seen in pictures that it's quite substantial. The lower plate was left less armored (protected via fuel tanks) because it was considered unnecessary to put armor on it, based on ballistic data collected from damaged tanks.
.
