Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: decay@utcs.utoronto.ca (D. Kreindler)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Merkava MBT
Summary: Shouldn't turret profile be considered, too?
Message-ID: <1991Jun20.021458.2461@cbnews.cb.att.com>
Date: 20 Jun 91 02:14:58 GMT
References: <1991Jun18.073925.13802@amd.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.cb.att.com (william.a.thacker)
Organization: UTCS Public Access
Lines: 17
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: "D. Kreindler" <decay@utcs.utoronto.ca>
In article <1991Jun18.073925.13802@amd.com> hc1@bale.cis.ufl.edu (Harry Campbell) writes:
>
>From: hc1@bale.cis.ufl.edu (Harry Campbell)
>
>
>....The Merkava has superior armor protection, except
>on the turret front (where there ain't nothing better than the M-1).

I'm curious how this determined.  One striking differences between the
M-1 and the Merkava is turret geometery.  Whereas the M-1 features
a box-like turret (with a *vertical* turret front), the Merkava's turret 
resembles nothing so much as a one of George Lucas's Star Destroyers - the
turret front is angled at least 50 degrees.  Was this angulation 
accounted for when determining relative protection value?