Chariot of Fire- Meng Merkava IIID

[boatman]

HI Alistair im not really into tanks as my intrest lies elsewhere but your build has got me hooked as I love the shape of this tank an its got a mean lookin main gun really lovely work that your build has shown so far an how many tons is she in real ? an is this a medium tank or heavy tank grade ? sorry but I don't know much about tanks
chris

[Steven000]

Great work Alistair, at first glance I thought you were preparing a casserole for the oven...
Lovely details :thumb2:
Steven

[Guest]

how many tons is she in real ? an is this a medium tank or heavy tank grade ? sorry but I don't know much about tanks

Since the 1950s, tanks haven’t been classed as light/medium/heavy anymore, but rather on their intended role. The Merkava is a main battle tank or MBT — that is, the principle combat vehicle of the army. The Merkava 4 weighs about 65 tonnes, though, which is fairly typical for a modern western MBT.

[boatman]

Since the 1950s, tanks haven’t been classed as light/medium/heavy anymore, but rather on their intended role. The Merkava is a main battle tank or MBT — that is, the principle combat vehicle of the army. The Merkava 4 weighs about 65 tonnes, though, which is fairly typical for a modern western MBT.

THANKS Jakko for info on this much appreciated but boy what a tank I really love the shape an the mean lookin main gun what is its mm ?
chris

[Road of Bones]

Scottie, Jim, Stephen - it's a blindingly simple idea really, but with metal tracks, you have to be a little more careful not to tear the foil inadvertently through rough handling! :face-with-head-bandage:

John R - sent you a PM about the tracks. As for the Burnishing Fluid, I can see it's settled out a fair bit after a couple of days, but there's an awful lot of gunk at the bottom. I've ordered a fresh bottle to be on the safe side.

Christopher - welcome to the muddy side! Glad to hear that my build has piqued your interest. I've always liked the look of this tank too - it has a sense of terrible purpose about it (most modern MBTs do, to be fair), but there's also an elegance of design about them too. For your info, the calibre of the main gun is 120mm.

Jakko - thanks for supplying Chris with the weight & designation info (I knew I could rely on you to have that stuff to hand!)

I spent last night wrangling tiny bits of chain onto the track-hangers, but didn't have much to show for it at the end - will take some pics later. Thanks for all your input gents!

Alistair

[Steve Jones]

Nice idea with the foil Alistair. Those track hangers must have been a real pain in the ooose.

[Guest]

I really love the shape an the mean lookin main gun what is its mm ?

120 mm. It fires the same ammunition as its German (Leopard 2) and American (M1 Abrams) counterparts, but not as the British 120 mm guns from Chieftain and either of the two Challengers.

Jakko - thanks for supplying Chris with the weight & designation info (I knew I could rely on you to have that stuff to hand!)

I didn’t have the weight to hand, but it’s easy to find out

[boatman]

120 mm. It fires the same ammunition as its German (Leopard 2) and American (M1 Abrams) counterparts, but not as the British 120 mm guns from Chieftain and either of the two Challengers.


I didn’t have the weight to hand, but it’s easy to find out :smiling3:

Alisister or Jakko whats the difference with the ammo on brit to this tanks gun ? is it to do with one barrel Is rifeled an the other are a smooth bore barrel ?
CHRIS

[Guest]

Yes, exactly, the British 120 mm guns are all rifled, the German one (and all those firing the same ammo) are smoothbore. The British guns also have two-piece ammunition, with the projectile and propellant being loaded separately (technically even three-piece: the firing tube also has to be loaded separately) and a bagged charge for the propellant, while the German-type rounds are one-piece with a mostly combustible cartridge case that leaves only the bottom bit (sometimes called the ashtray, as that’s what it looks like more than a bit).

[boatman]

Yes, exactly, the British 120 mm guns are all rifled, the German one (and all those firing the same ammo) are smoothbore. The British guns also have two-piece ammunition, with the projectile and propellant being loaded separately (technically even three-piece: the firing tube also has to be loaded separately) and a bagged charge for the propellant, while the German-type rounds are one-piece with a mostly combustible cartridge case that leaves only the bottom bit (sometimes called the ashtray, as that’s what it looks like more than a bit).

WELL it seems to me our type has a slower rate of fire after all the messin around loadin projectile and propellant being loaded separately (technically even three-piece: the firing tube also has to be loaded separately) and a bagged charge for the propellant, while the German-type rounds are one-piece with a a quicker rate of fire give me the german type any day AN SORRY ALISTAIR DONT MEAN TO HIJACK YOUR BUILD THREAD
chris

[Guest]

The main British argument for the separate loading, IIRC, was that it allows the propellant to be stowed in the hull rather than the turret, drastically reducing the risk of fire in the tank: most tank fires and explosions are caused by the propellant being ignited by a hit to the ammunition, rather than by an engine or fuel tank hit, and tanks get hit in the turret much more than in the hull (this is also what made the late model of the M4 medium tank, AKA the Sherman, the safest tank to be in in the Second World War: relocating the ammo bins to the floor). The Germans and Americans solved this problem with automatic fire extinguishers, armour between the ammo stowage and the crew compartment, and blow-off panels: if the ammo takes a hit and it doesn’t get extinguished but explodes, part of the turret roof gets blown off to vent the force away from the crew. This has, AFAIK, saved multiple American lives in Iraq.

The Merkava, to bring this back to the model being built here, uses different arrangements, including protecting ammo and crew using — wait for it — the fuel tanks. These are deliberately placed around the outside of the vehicle so they and their contents can act as armour. The number one priority in the Merkava was crew survival, on the principle that a new crew for a usable tank is much harder to come by than a new tank for a homeless crew.

[boatman]

The main British argument for the separate loading, IIRC, was that it allows the propellant to be stowed in the hull rather than the turret, drastically reducing the risk of fire in the tank: most tank fires and explosions are caused by the propellant being ignited by a hit to the ammunition, rather than by an engine or fuel tank hit, and tanks get hit in the turret much more than in the hull (this is also what made the late model of the M4 medium tank, AKA the Sherman, the safest tank to be in in the Second World War: relocating the ammo bins to the floor). The Germans and Americans solved this problem with automatic fire extinguishers, armour between the ammo stowage and the crew compartment, and blow-off panels: if the ammo takes a hit and it doesn’t get extinguished but explodes, part of the turret roof gets blown off to vent the force away from the crew. This has, AFAIK, saved multiple American lives in Iraq.

The Merkava, to bring this back to the model being built here, uses different arrangements, including protecting ammo and crew using — wait for it — the fuel tanks. These are deliberately placed around the outside of the vehicle so they and their contents can act as armour. The number one priority in the Merkava was crew survival, on the principle that a new crew for a usable tank is much harder to come by than a new tank for a homeless crew.

thanks for that info Jakko ive learned something eles today :thumb2:
chris

[Road of Bones]

...and this is why I love forums like this! No worries about hijacking my thread Chris, as I have no problem with Jakko sharing his knowledge with everyone. There is always something new to be learned, after all!
One of the best blogs I ever did was the one for my M60A3, where 3 different guys who‘d crewed them shared their own stories, pictures and technical knowledge to help me build a better model:



(This one still occupies the Shelf of Shame, waiting for a base and more extensive weathering)

But I digress...back to the current bench emcumbent!

Here are the track hanger support chains, fore and aft on the port side. You might also be able to make out the 3-link chain between adjacent track hanger assemblies. These were far more tricky to fit than I anticipated, but I couldn’t see a way to do it until the hangers were in place:


Better get on with the starboard side now then...
Thanks for looking chaps,

Alistair☠️

[Jim R]

Hi Alistair
That chain work is a real credit to your skill and patience. As for the chat between Chris and Jakko - I welcome it and have learned a lot.
Jim

[Steve Jones]

PM sent