Why has no other country besides Israel bought the Merkava?

[Thor]

I'm just curious about why no other country than Israel has procured the Merkava tank?

[Ichhabe]

Maybe because the Israelis like to hold their cards close?!? :D

[FDF_Hemppis]

Well the question is: Do they even sell it? :)

[Thor]

Seems like it at least..

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/

[S'13]

I'm just curious about why no other country than Israel has procured the Merkava tank?

The Merkava was built for the IDF and we would like it to stay that way...

[S'13]

BTW, here's a video of the Merkava mark 4 (I believe it was posted already some time ago).

mms://video.nrg.co.il/lib/2004/news/mark4.wmv

[ardy]

1. It's politically flammable.
2. The Leopard series is cheaper and better.

[Digital Marine]

3. Abrams pwns p-)

[Mark_Aspen]

Most of our sales, if not technological ones (HUDs, radar, fire controls) are usually smaller less glamorous things (Spikes, UAVs, Popeyes) that kind of fall under the news radar. That ones that don't, end up compromised (Phalcons, Kfirs, Phantom 2000)

Tanks would certainly be hard to hide. As it is, the most logical buyers (besides the Arab states :lol: ) are countries that are already building their own. There would likely be issues with the US, since the engines are American made, but that could be changed.

[Javehn]

The Merkava was built for the IDF and we would like it to stay that way...

It's not that Israeli didn't tried . It's just that for the target crowd , it's a bit much expensive that they can afford .

[S'13]

2. The Leopard series is cheaper and better.

A) On what basis do you say that the Leopard is better than the Merkava? Just curious to know...

B) The Merkava is tailor made for IDF needs just as I am sure that the Leopard built for the needs of the German military.

Both tanks were built for different battlefields and so there isn't much use comparing them.

[S'13]

The Merkava was built for the IDF and we would like it to stay that way...

It's not that Israeli didn't tried . It's just that for the target crowd , it's a bit much expensive that they can afford .

True, but there is also the problem of having certain technologies (armor technology in particular) being in other people's hands.

[Javehn]

Trust me , dude , what would be sold , would have not much to do with the real thing . Plus , the technology is getting outdated . Merkava 1 is 30 yo design and not a top notch as it used to be . I don't think that there is something we couldn't reveal , except of the armor composition in several points (and that's where the lovely letter X comes to work , Merkava-1X as an export ;) ) . Many contacts have been made in order to sale Merkava 1 (and that's from open sources) .

[S'13]

Trust me , dude , what would be sold , would have not much to do with the real thing . Plus , the technology is getting outdated . Merkava 1 is 30 yo design and not a top notch as it used to be . I don't think that there is something we couldn't reveal , except of the armor composition in several points (and that's where the lovely letter X comes to work , Merkava-1X as an export ;) ) . Many contacts have been made in order to sale Merkava 1 (and that's from free sources) .

Of course, when it comes to the Merkava mark 1 it isn't a big risk though I believe the people here are talking about the more advanced Merkava models.

And again the fact that we want to keep sensitive technology in our hands comes into the picture.

[eggroll]

sheesh! why not just drop drawz and pull out the tape measures or micrometers in some instances.

:bash:

[I love Rachael Leigh Cook]

I'm not an expert on tanks, maybe an IDF tanker can clarify, but I was always told that the Merkava was pretty unique. It's essentially a defensive tank, very well protected(esp. the crew) but not very fast or manueverable. therefore it would not be very suitable for open, battlefields where speed and range are important, or when facing enemies with faster, more powerful tanks. Certainly the Merkava I was pretty slow, max speed of only 46km/h, compared to other diesel tanks like Leo2 or Challenger. I think the newer versions are quite a bit faster but I don't know what to compare them with really.

[ardy]

Most of our sales, if not technological ones (HUDs, radar, fire controls) are usually smaller less glamorous things (Spikes, UAVs, Popeyes) that kind of fall under the news radar. That ones that don't, end up compromised (Phalcons, Kfirs, Phantom 2000)You're wrong. Norway tried to just TEST the Spike and parliament were almost demanding the people in charge to resign. Now imagine what would happen if they tried to test a tank..

Personally I think if Israel just left those arabs alone then they would be making millions selling defence hardware.

A) On what basis do you say that the Leopard is better than the Merkava? Just curious to know...Better might be the wrong wording, different is probably better. They're vehicles designed for different purposes.

[HoboWithAK]

Can the Leo latest series carry a detached squad in the back? I didn't think so. The Merkava was built for specific needs, and some of them happen to different from other assault-geared MBTs.

[martinexsquaddie]

thats a very limited export market for top notch mbts remove the arab states and theres virtually no one
plus the merkava was buuilt for the IDF specfic needs most books put it in a class of its own. wouldn't be ideal for thelong road to baghad.
but then they'd have to come through syria to get there :lol: rofl

[Marsh]

I'm not an expert on tanks, maybe an IDF tanker can clarify, but I was always told that the Merkava was pretty unique. It's essentially a defensive tank, very well protected(esp. the crew) but not very fast or manueverable. therefore it would not be very suitable for open, battlefields where speed and range are important, or when facing enemies with faster, more powerful tanks. Certainly the Merkava I was pretty slow, max speed of only 46km/h, compared to other diesel tanks like Leo2 or Challenger. I think the newer versions are quite a bit faster but I don't know what to compare them with really.

Hi,
There is a distinction between speed over good going and battlefield manoeuverability over tangled terrain. The Merkava has a greater range of movement (bump/rebound) for its roadwheels than other modern MBTs coupled to a really good suspension system. It also has the ability to climb slopes of 70 degrees, again somewhat better than its contemporaries. In combination, this gives it better tactical mobility than most competators. The Merkava 3s excellent transmission means that actual power available at the drive sprockets is around 18 hp down on the M1A1 even though on paper the difference in hp is 200 in favour of the Abrams powerpack.
When observing the Merkava and Abrams traversing rough terrain, Maj Gen Stan Sheridan was very surprised that he could not discern any difference between the two. (IDF tankers who exercised alongside the Abrams still claim that the machine "couldn't climb like the Merkava").
Sheridan was to rate the Merkava 3, Abrams and Leopard 2 as being on a par as MBTs, followed somwhat behind by Challenger - for the record my favourite tank.

Cheers
Marsh

[israeli dude]

look theirs nathing really to argu here,the merkava 3 and 4are one of the bast tank in the world.
the only problom is that its israeli,il explain,i read somwhere that their was a tast in the UK between the negev LMG and the M-249 LMG,and the negev was found to be better,but still thay bout the M249,because it was not from israel.

[Hydro]

look theirs nathing really to argu here,the merkava 3 and 4are one of the bast tank in the world.
the only problom is that its israeli,il explain,i read somwhere that their was a tast in the UK between the negev LMG and the M-249 LMG,and the negev was found to be better,but still thay bout the M249,because it was not from israel.

I've heard this too. I've also heard that the Javelin was chosen over the SPIKE to replace MILAN for the same reason.

[S'13]

You're wrong. Norway tried to just TEST the Spike and parliament were almost demanding the people in charge to resign. Now imagine what would happen if they tried to test a tank..


Finland, Poland and the Netherlands didn't have a problem purchasing the Spike. It is a pity that Norway would let politics get in the way...


Personally I think if Israel just left those arabs alone then they would be making millions selling defence hardware.

You don't say... :lol: rofl

No one is doing us any favors when purchasing our weapons, countries purchase the Spike because they believe this system is best for their needs.
And if a country decides not to purchase a certain system because of politics, then it is that country's militry (in other words the soldiers in the field) that will have to deal with it.


Better might be the wrong wording, different is probably better. They're vehicles designed for different purposes.

No argument there.

[Bricchetto]

2. The Leopard series is cheaper and better.

A) On what basis do you say that the Leopard is better than the Merkava? Just curious to know...

B) The Merkava is tailor made for IDF needs just as I am sure that the Leopard built for the needs of the German military.

Both tanks were built for different battlefields and so there isn't much use comparing them.

Yes, so think I.
Leopard, Abrahms and italian Ariete were made to fight against russian tanks.
They have engine on the back (not as Merkava), can't carry soldiers inside (as merkava) and need more armour.
Now, in Iraq, in small town, narrow ways, rpg at the windows, i think Merkava is better then others.
Perhaps, in battlefield of north east of Italy, you can choose Ariete or Leo.

Just my two cents. woot

[israeli dude]

look theirs nathing really to argu here,the merkava 3 and 4are one of the bast tank in the world.
the only problom is that its israeli,il explain,i read somwhere that their was a tast in the UK between the negev LMG and the M-249 LMG,and the negev was found to be better,but still thay bout the M249,because it was not from israel.

I've heard this too. I've also heard that the Javelin was chosen over the SPIKE to replace MILAN for the same reason.

buying weapons is not jest by the army,its by the politetion to.

[cbreedon]

[quote="ardy]
Personally I think if Israel just left those arabs alone [quote]A)

Uh I think it's the other way around

[Thor]

thats a very limited export market for top notch mbts remove the arab states and theres virtually no one
You don't have a clue.. The export market for tanks is great.

I don't think the israelis have gotten a serious request yet, that's why it hasn't been sold to any nation so far.

Some similiarites to the fighter/interceptor JA 37 Viggen.. A great plane but built specifically for swedish needs..

[Rishon]

(Almost) Every country gets a Tank for their needs and wants. The Abrams (with TUSK!!) is one of the best all-around Tanks, America has it mainly to keep heavy armor that works in all enviroments until the Future Combat Systems are released. The Challenger 2 is good for Britain's wants, as it has heavy defences and is quite powerful and ->can<- be used in an Urban enviroment. The Leo2A5 is cheap and reliable and is also quite good for homeland defence, made for fighting tanks and for terrain warfare.

The Merkava is in most respects an Urban Tank. It carries 4 troops and some ammo, has good overall protection and has alot of firepower. It is not bought for ->probably<- 2 reasons.

#1: I don't believe Israel sells it. That could halt a sales decision.
#2: Most Countries want a tank that is good all around. The Merkava 4 is too.....well, Urbanized. It's made to protect Israeli cities against foreign (mainly Arab) threats. It's not good for open ground warfare and even if it was it's not as cheap and cost effective as, oh say, a T-80.

So, there that is my theory on Not-buying-Merkava 4-tivity

[Marsh]

Hi Rishon,
The Merkava was not designed to operate in urban areas. Its design remit was for a tank capable of Combined Arms operations during full scale conventional war. Its specific characterisitcs were -

To be more survivable than its potential opponents
To offer maximum crew protection
To be capable of traversing very rough terrain
To have superior battlefield sustainability.

The lessons the IDF learned from the 1973 war were that crews were more difficult to replace than tanks and that a large ammunition load needed to be carried in order to sustain high intensity battle stretching out non-stop for over a day or more.

Just as the Merkava was never designed for urban warfare, neither were the standard variants of the Achzarit, Nagmashot, Nagmachon or Nakpadon. It turned out that all of these AFVs could be altered and re-configured for MOUT/FIBUA/FISH operations, but that was not considered in the their original designs
cheers

Marsh

P.S
Sorry Thor but in fact the market for new MBTs is nowadays very limited. Several countries are decanting perfectly good, modern tanks from their armouries and offering them to allies for nominal fees. Just about no nation is purchasing new build tanks from a third party source in any numbers.

[Rishon]

Ah, I see. Then I Stand corrected.

[Thor]

The Leo2A5 is cheap and reliable and is also quite good for homeland defence, made for fighting tanks and for terrain warfare.
The Leo isn't cheap the Abrams is expensive. :)

Abrams TUSK is a add-on that's very new and has nothing to do with the basic characteristic of the tank. The Leo family are working on similar upgrades that's probably going to be a cut above Abrams TUSK. I'd say Stridsvagn 122B (Leopard 2A5SB?) will probably be the best tank in service in the world when it enters service in early 2006. The only problem is that we will only get like 20 (!) of it and only for the swedish/finnish EU battle group.

The Merkava I just don't know about. Guess that's why I started this thread.. :)

[oldsoak]

I had a look at The Merk ( alas, only in model form. But one day, I hope to go over to Israel and have a sniff aroung the Latrun museum. ). It struck me that the merk turret looked almost like a development of the British Chieftain turret - probably done better and cheaper.
The idea of putting the engine in front has always struck me as being rather clever - lots of metal infront of the crew to enhance survivability, plus a back door to leg it out of when it all goes bang.
Would I be correct in assuming that the lack of Merkava sales is due to
1 - manufacturing constraints - the IDF requirement being paramount so little is availiiable for export.
2 - price - the opposition being able to provide cheaper solutions due to larger production runs
3 - poltics and doubts as to gettin adequate support.

I'm not convinced on the Merk being being held back due to security issues ( until the advent of Israeli "Chobham" type armour ) - as a tank that is. Any competent tank designer could have a very good idea of the tank given photographs. What he wont be able to gauge is the crew factors and the electronics -ie what makes it a weapoins system. You could strip a M1 of its electronics and hand the shell over to Russians and it would'nt tell them much more than their tank designers could surmise. I'd suspect the security concerns are with all the nice little fire control and "tank internet" electronics plus other interesting stuff that the Israelis put on. These would be removed and the end result would be a tank that didnt offer too much more than the opposition.

[Michael RVR]

look theirs nathing really to argu here,the merkava 3 and 4are one of the bast tank in the world.
the only problom is that its israeli,il explain,i read somwhere that their was a tast in the UK between the negev LMG and the M-249 LMG,and the negev was found to be better,but still thay bout the M249,because it was not from israel.

I've heard this too. I've also heard that the Javelin was chosen over the SPIKE to replace MILAN for the same reason.

From what i've heard we probably would have chosen spike over javelin if hadn't jumped the gun ;)

Also, iirc the israeli's only have the Merk 3 on the market, and why buy an already superseded tank?

[Siddar]

My guess is it comes down to cost Abrams and Leo have production numbers well above 5000 compared to 1500 range for Merk so cost for Merk is probaly higher.

[martinexsquaddie]

so apart from western europe and they make who make there own MBTS russia and china they make there own
who else can afford to buy modern mbts ?

[LazerLordz]

Well, you forgot Singapore is one of the largest overseas buyer of Israeli equipment.. SPIKE-ER, Rafael modified Vipers..UAVs, Ofeq Satellites..

[oldsoak]

Agreed - however Singapore has little need of tanks. Aquisition of tanks like merkava or t72 etc would send the wrong signals to the neighbours. The only reason for the Singaporeans to get off the Island would be to either sieze the Malaysian end of the causeway and hold strategic parts of Johore Bahru - or to come to Malaysias aid in the event of war ( barring UN type deployments ). They do, however, have a need for ATGM's etc and mobile light armour that can be deployed rapidly.