Recently a number of photos have been published of something that seem to be a new loaders hatch on the Merkava 4:


We know that the Merkava 4's have a loaders hatch that is normally blocked by thick turret roof armour, and that this armour is normally only removed for training when an instructors seat is attached to the tanks roof. Some months ago a Merkava 4 was spotted outside Gaza, with the loader sticking his head up his hatch, but since then, at least all Merkava 4 that I have seen have the roof armour covering the loaders hatch.

Until now. The photo shows a thick chunk of armour attached to the loaders hatch, but in a way that let the loader open the hatch. This is something new. Could this mean that the IDF is changing the policy of only one roof hatch on the Merkava 4? Or is it just a test?

It is not possible to make a guess if the armour is as heavy as the armour on the commanders hatch, we cannot see if the loader has some sort of mechanical aid to open the hatch, or if it is mostly a lighter spaced armour item with a lot of air inside. But it seem clear to me that this is something made for combat, not only to be mounted during training.

Any other take on this?

While the Loader's hatch armor panel is most assurdly a lighter-than-solid-steel composite, it would still need at least a hefty spring assist to open it. If it doesn't have some sort of fancy powered actuator like the TC's hatch does.

As for why when and how? Who knows. The Israelis like to tinker with their armor so much, they might not even know.
Since we know that the hatch opening at least has always been been there, could have been that the roof armor module was made solid for simplicity and costs, or perhaps it was always there but we simply never saw any pictures with the hatch in the open position?

Could be it's reconfigurable for mission and threat environment?

With the modular armor, yes easily.

No, this hatch is new for sure. At least it has never been shown publicly before. We have seen dozens of photos of the roof of dozens of different Merkava 4s, in training and in combat. Only solid modular armour except in some occations when the instructors seat has been mounted on the roof. Never any loaders hatch like this.

Like James said, yes. The point is that the Merkava design office explained the solid modular armour on top of the loaders position as neccesary to provide enough overhead protection in face of new threats. And that the 360 degree video system would provide good enough situational awareness, so that the extra pair of eyes outside wasnt really needed. So, has the IDF changed their mind on this, or is this hatch simply a test device? Or is it specially designed for MOUT? I personally find the last one to be the most unlikely of the three.

Giving away the loader's hatch proved to be mistaken. As new MK4 models role out of production, some more hard learned lessons take effect. The hatch option always was embeded in the turret - It was the armour that didn't allow it.

Thanks DADI. So it is really a change of policy. Do we have a Merkava 4A now, or no change in designation?

When we are talking about changes in the Merkava 4 design, one more design feature can be seen on (at least some) new models: The space between the drivers left and middle periscope has been widened, and an electro optical device mounted in place. Most likely a day/night video camera. Also the rear external armour has been enhanced (again on at least some models), with the familiar rear turret chain and ball type armour mounted under each rear hull basket, giving additional HEAT protection for the lower part of the rear hull.

Its Mk.4 Bet already : )

According to army magazine (so I'm not revealing any state secrets here) there are a bunch of other updates, such as MAANAK - which stands for "Combat Management System", whatever the heck that means (and does), new thermal sights for the driver, as well as some other things that weren't mentioned there.

And you didn't tell me? I thought we were buddies! Wasn't it me that fed you with photo of that Israeli C-130 delivering Jewish missiles to the Norwegian army some years ago???



Seriously though: Has there been any statement or report from official sources on this, or is it the usual mouth to mouth thing?

Sorry I’ve been busy lately : )

Here’s another pic as consolation: )

http://dover.idf.il/NR/rdonlyres/B7654C65-...0/288200802.jpg

There was an article in ‘Bamahane’ in august, stating that the 401st armored brigade should finish transition to Mk.4 Bet by early november. It describes the two Bet upgrades I’ve mentioned above, and the people on my forum speculated about a few other differences – in the drivetrain and supposedly FCS. There aren’t any more details than that, so yea, beyond that article its all rumors.

One general question: what is that "rough" surface good for? Camouflage? Magnetic mine protection?

Not falling off the damn thing

And seriously scratching your knees if you climb over it in shorts. I actually think its a protection device against tanknetters visiting Israel.

Thanks. Glad to know that we are still buddies.

The photo in your post, together with the photo I posted on top, was actually the reason why I concluded as I did. The hatch was to damn well made to be used only for training, and not offering very much extra in typical buttoned-up MOUT.

And I was actually making a list of all the improvements, changes and add-ons so far identified on the Merkava 4 from production started to the latest seen Merkava 4 Bet some minutes ago, when my Windows went down. F*ck you Bill Gates and your bl**dy Vista-sh*t.
Well, well, if I have more time another day...

TC does not look very Israeli.

I don't remember the TC's name (obviously senior officer), but the "loader" is Lt. General Gadi Shamni Cent-Com.

Speaking of the 401st, here they are: http://dover.idf.il/NR/rdonlyres/0817689C-...cropped_big.jpg

And since we're at it, just a bunch of pretty pictures from the Golans in august:

http://img801.mytextgraphics.com/photolava...-4blefoo8f.jpeg

http://img108.mytextgraphics.com/photolava...-4bleke8p5.jpeg

http://img802.mytextgraphics.com/photolava...-4blei8hu9.jpeg

http://img802.mytextgraphics.com/photolava...-4blej6qlg.jpeg

http://img802.mytextgraphics.com/photolava...-4blecblvr.jpeg

Ok, stupid question. Why is the loader? wearing glovers.. shouldn´t there be like 1000 000 degrees warm out there?

I'm guessing for hand protection rather then for warmth?

Those are NOMEX flame retardant gloves.

Same thing we wear here in the US.


My question is what is the box or control panel in between the TC's cupola and the loaders hatch?

Pilot gloves. I've got one pair, and they're perfectly wearable in summer.

There are lots of sharp edges and hot things in and on a tank. Plus the possibility of flash burns.

I've found them hot in summer and cold in winter. My personal preference are light leather (deerskin or equiv.) I want to get a pair of the grey leather RAF flyer's gloves.

Talk about drift--from loader's hatch to fashion handwear!

What does an Israeli look like?

I've always dreamed all Israelies looked like this!

Works for me.

Interesting mag attachment.

I swear, tanknetters pick up the strangest of details.

What mag? Where? Must be some sort of obscure unimportant detail on that pic

Well, you do at least a few of the hairy-faced ones, to maintain supply of above...

I like the way this thread has transformed. From thick IDF loader hatches to slim IDF girls.

Yeah, slim IDF girls beats fashion tanker gloves hands down...

Back to topic here.. Loader's hatch?

Snort!
Marsh

Gonna repeat my question cause it got washed by the hot, hot Israeli chick like exhaust in the TIS. (yes that was a great tanker simile...............or is it analogy? I can never remember.)


"My question is what is the box or control panel in between the TC's cupola and the loaders hatch?"

Does the IDF issue their female soldiers those hip hugger styled pants or are they bought/modified privately? Women even have to be fashionable, even in the military.



My guess would be either a GPS or some kind of training device control pad. There's really no reason to put a control to something on the outside there and its only got "soldier proof" protection level around it.

Hi James,
I think you might be wrong on this one.
Cheers
Marsh

I dont think its a GPS, one of the buttons has what looks like a telephone connection. I thought maybe a plug in for external communications, but then why is it facing forward and whats with the LED screen?


To me it looks like it is mounted solid, of course that could be just a bolt or two on the bottom.

It was just a guess...

Does she have a loader's hatch?

Aww them deadly Israeli strippers

It's a Command tank - It has extra communications, command & control systems...,, and accessories mountings, as you can see behind the loader's left.

We sent some of our women soldiers with the IDF delegation to a certain, ex USSR Asian republic, sniper school.


The welcoming committee was made of local woman of arms:

Yeah if only our sniping instructors could actually shoot at good as they look...

The low-cut pants are 'modded' and the army doesn't like that: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3247862,00.html
Not that any disciplinary action actually worked : )

About gloves on loaders, don't your loaders use gloves in the states? The little I've been a loader I liked wearing gloves. If not for anything else when you change barrel on the coax.

/R

(sorry for staying slightly on topic)

Yes, the US uses the exact same NOMEX flight gloves for AFV and AC crews. Not sure who makes them US or them...

It actually worked in a way... we've been instructed to stop enforcing it, and the army changed the cut on the girls uniforms.
However, it's perfectly ok for female soldiers to modify the width of their pants, including the leg.

A bit of topic, but since we're talking about Merk-4, could someone enlight me about the damage assesment of this Merk-4 ? I believe the vehicle is still moveable, but...
Sorry if it's been disscused already.

Looks like an ATGM hit. Probably to the upper hull where the plate is missing.

I'm surprised that picture has made its way onto the 'net. It shows the composition of the Mk 4's armor array quite clearly. The IDF censors will be very annoyed.

This is not the first time the photo has been put on the net. But yes, no doubt the soldier who let this photo going public will get a boot or two up his ass.

It is very interesting though, showing how the NERA on the turret is arranged. Note also how the armour has slid a bit outwards.

Like James, my first thought was HEAT from an ATGM. The damage to the upper hull is clearly to big to be made by a RPG-7-class weapon. So yes, should be a larger caliber ATGM, I believe.

However, I am not sure that the hit was made on the upper hull. The damage to the upper hull and plates seems to indicate that they have been blown outwards from the tank. Combined with how the bottom part of the turret NERA looks, and the fact that the whole armour box has slid outwards, my guess would be a hit on the bottom part of the turret, with blast from the warhead blowing out parts from the upper hull. In other words, the warhead exploding when it was in the space between the upper hull and the bottom part of the turret. If the warhead had hit the upper hull, there is no reason why the armour box on the turret should have slid outwards.

Or could it just be some kind of APHE warhead from a recoilless gun, penetrating the outher hull armour, and then exploding?