Is Israely ERA better then Russian Era of latest models namels Kaktus? Merkava is definetly secure in place in the three best tanks of the world. I think it might have some less armor protection then the Chal 2, or some squabbles with russians t-90 atgm at-11 sniper b at 5km range.

Another vote for Merkava MKIV

The Israeli design and development philosophy differs from that of most major countries in that they make running design and production changes. So, while various sustems are being tweaked, they are already going into production with other components.  Where this is a major plus for Israel is they make continuous incremental changes in the electronics suite, various armor tweaks, etc as weapons roll off the lines.

Why do they do this?

Primarily to improve time to deployment and to also improve development cost efficiencies.

On another point, if you look at the development history of Merkava, there have been four major versions of the tank, each with marked improvements to the overall system.  Most of the other MBT's, in a similar timeframe have had only one or two major incarnations. The Israelis have come across deficients during battle, and have quickly incororated improvements to help defeat/overcome those deficiencies.

Lastly,  to be honest....how often is high speed really all that beneficial. Even in modern warfare, the battles tend to be relatively et piece battles, with occasional movement. I'd much rather be in a tank capable of reasonably good cross country speed and maneuverability over relatively flat terrain that also has good rough terrain capabilities...the Merkava is good in both situations.  I don't think a 10 kph difference in speed is going to make that much difference in a set piece battle of 100+ tanks against 100+ tanks.  The deciding factors will be combination of correct initial positioning, crew training/tenacity, general leadership for the overall situation/battle, and, of course, the quality and availability of the equipment. 

Mark-

Another vote for Merkava MKIV

The Israeli design and development philosophy differs from that of most major countries in that they make running design and production changes. So, while various sustems are being tweaked, they are already going into production with other components.  Where this is a major plus for Israel is they make continuous incremental changes in the electronics suite, various armor tweaks, etc as weapons roll off the lines.

Why do they do this?

Primarily to improve time to deployment and to also improve development cost efficiencies.

On another point, if you look at the development history of Merkava, there have been four major versions of the tank, each with marked improvements to the overall system.  Most of the other MBT's, in a similar timeframe have had only one or two major incarnations. The Israelis have come across deficients during battle, and have quickly incororated improvements to help defeat/overcome those deficiencies.

Lastly,  to be honest....how often is high speed really all that beneficial. Even in modern warfare, the battles tend to be relatively et piece battles, with occasional movement. I'd much rather be in a tank capable of reasonably good cross country speed and maneuverability over relatively flat terrain that also has good rough terrain capabilities...the Merkava is good in both situations.  I don't think a 10 kph difference in speed is going to make that much difference in a set piece battle of 100+ tanks against 100+ tanks.  The deciding factors will be combination of correct initial positioning, crew training/tenacity, general leadership for the overall situation/battle, and, of course, the quality and availability of the equipment. 

Mark-

Another vote for Merkava MKIV

The Israeli design and development philosophy differs from that of most major countries in that they make running design and production changes. So, while various sustems are being tweaked, they are already going into production with other components.  Where this is a major plus for Israel is they make continuous incremental changes in the electronics suite, various armor tweaks, etc as weapons roll off the lines.

Why do they do this?

Primarily to improve time to deployment and to also improve development cost efficiencies.

On another point, if you look at the development history of Merkava, there have been four major versions of the tank, each with marked improvements to the overall system.  Most of the other MBT's, in a similar timeframe have had only one or two major incarnations. The Israelis have come across deficients during battle, and have quickly incororated improvements to help defeat/overcome those deficiencies.

Lastly,  to be honest....how often is high speed really all that beneficial. Even in modern warfare, the battles tend to be relatively et piece battles, with occasional movement. I'd much rather be in a tank capable of reasonably good cross country speed and maneuverability over relatively flat terrain that also has good rough terrain capabilities...the Merkava is good in both situations.  I don't think a 10 kph difference in speed is going to make that much difference in a set piece battle of 100+ tanks against 100+ tanks.  The deciding factors will be combination of correct initial positioning, crew training/tenacity, general leadership for the overall situation/battle, and, of course, the quality and availability of the equipment. 

Mark-

Still a pile of nonsence no matter how many times you say it.

How are you going to say the Leclerc should be compared to Bradleys instead of contemporary MBTs?  Leclerc may be lighter than other western mbts, but at over 50tons it sure is out of the class of any MICV.  Plus it has a NATO standard 120mm gun and a 1500hp engine.  What MICV compares to that?  Plus it is still heavier than its Russian counterparts.  Should the Russian tanks be compared to Bradleys, also?  The Leclerc is all MBT, even if 18-20 tons lighter (than an M1 or Challenger) for mobility sake.  It still weighs as much as a previous generation US M-60.  Would you compare that to a Bradley?