Merkava or Abrams

[StealthMode]

I am in now way knowledgable about either MBT.
However, I often hear the Abrams is the best tank in the world.

After a brief glimps, the Merkava design appeals to me, but what about the specs? Technology?

What tank is better, statistics wise, and technology?

I hope im creating a good discussion here..... :roll:

[Javehn]

I hope im creating a good discussion here.....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No .

[wholagun]

I hope im creating a good discussion here.....

hahaha odds are stacked against you, as you probably know all discussions here lead to BS.

I will tell you what I know, which is very little. By me responding its kinda like the blind leading the blind, or I see the blind man to his deaf son.

Merkava has the engine in the front so that allows for an excape door in the back of the Merk. Merk also has modular armour i belive which allows the crew to put on more or less armour. Also with the engine in the front the crew is able to survive a attack from the front more cause they have the engine blocking them. The Merka also I belive has a special storeage for ammo so that if something hits tank the ammo won't blow and toast the crew. All in all the Merk is suppose to be the best tank when it comes to crew surviving. Thats all I know, and im not even sure its 100% right so correct me if im wrong.

[aktarian]

Merkava was designed specifically for Israel and for specific conditions Israel will fight in.

Also don't forget Abrams has gas turbine while Merkava has diesel engine.

[cut]

I am in now way knowledgable about either MBT.
However, I often hear the Abrams is the best tank in the world.

After a brief glimps, the Merkava design appeals to me, but what about the specs? Technology?

What tank is better, statistics wise, and technology?

I hope im creating a good discussion here..... :roll:

neither is better or worse they are too different and are designed for different purposes


but just for you:

M1A2 Mk3

weight (fully armed) (tons) 69.54 62.6

length (gun forward) (metres) 9.8 8.8

height (meters) 2.9 2.8

width 3.7 3.7

range (miles) 265 311

crew 4 4

road speed (km/h) 90+ 55

main armament 120mm 120mm

engine gas turbine diesel


Although similar in some respects, the Merkava is very different from the M1 in others. It is much slower (perhaps half as fast): the Israelis value absolute speed much less than the ability to manoeuvre under fire, particularly over the lava-strewn Golan Heights. They also lack the super-fast infantry fighting vehicles to keep up with the tanks. There is a rear hatch on the Merkava that allows the evacuation of wounded or resupply of ammunition without exposing the crew-again, requirements derived from particular problems of keeping a firing line on the Golan Heights. Finally, the Israeli engine is at the front of the tank, where it can absorb an incoming round-a sacrifice of mechanical efficiency for crew protection. The M1 gets similar effect by unusually good (and expensive) armour.

note: the states speed for the M1A2 is considerably too slow.

[Operation Ivy]

However, I often hear the Abrams is the best tank in the world

u havent read many tank post have ya p-)

[Schwabo Elite]

As stated before the Merkava is build for entirely diffrent purposes.

You can see this if you take a closer look:
The Merkava 4, which is not the upgraded version of the older Merkava 1 and 2, but a entirely new design, is much more of the old Crusader style tanks, British forces used before and in the early years of WW2. Though of course build with the newest technology and surely a formidable tank it is no "main battle tank" as per definition. These main battle tanks (MBT) evolved out of the old classifications of light, medium and heavy tanks. MBTs were to replace the latter two, whilst light tanks would be dropped as a design concept and/or replaced by recon vehicles, antitank vehicles and simillar lightweight armored vehicles. The role of a main battle tank was to fight in large tank battles that were expected to be the "way of fighting" in the heydays of the cold war (should it become hot). The Soviets designed the first multipurpose MBT, the T-54/55 series. Though this is arguable, I think it is true, since the contemporary US tanks, the M-47/48/60 series descended from the M-26 Pershing which was the first reliable US heavy tank and an answer to the German Tiger and Panther tanks in WW2, which proved to be to good for the M4 Sherman (and its offshots).
By now the US technology peaks in the M1 Abrams series which is cleary one of the best main battle tanks in the world. The idea still is that these kind of tanks are made for open combat, best in wide plains, such as the North-German lowlands, the Russian Taiga or the midwest US plains. It is arguable if such battlefields will come up in the future, especially for large scale battles, because I (and various better read people) see 21st century warfare more likely to be small scale and short, because of economic reasons.
Under these criterias the Israelis are one step ahead with the Merkava, since it was designed to be a multitalent. It can transport a small detachment of troopers, though without any surplus equipment they would need to fight for longer periods, it has a very modern gun, give indirect fire support with a small 60mm turret build in mortar (my favourite) ;) and is fast enough for city fights.
In the densly settled cities of the Near East, as well as in the dimensional small state of Israel itself, the Merkava surely keeps its promise. However it cannot hope to compete succesfully with even slightly older tanks, since is to slow and it is just impossible to get:
- a premium tank
- an infantry fighting vehicle
- and less weight (7 tons compared to the Abrams)
for any reasonable price (or at all).

In total the Merkava can be compared to the Abrams, but the result of the comparison would be devastating for the Merkava and unfair, too. It is no MBT and it wasn't designed as one. If you like it, call it a crusader, though maybe the Israelis wouldn't like crusaders in Jerusalem again. ;)

SE

[Operation Ivy]

Umm how can it be that the Merk4 is not a MBT????

[aktarian]

The role of a main battle tank was to fight in large tank battles that were expected to be the "way of fighting" in the heydays of the cold war (should it become hot). The Soviets designed the first multipurpose MBT, the T-54/55 series.

Actually term main battle tank comes from separation during early period of WW2 where armies had 2 types of tanks. One to fight other tanks with smaller calibre, higher velocity gun, longer barrel (Pz III), other to fight infantry and soft targets like arty, AT... with larger calibre, lower velocity and shorter barrel (Pz IV). Pz V and VI (Panther and Tiger) were designed to fulfill both roles with one gun (some tanks had two guns, one of each type) which was both long, big calibre and had high velocity. Panther is considered best MBT of WW2 as it had good combination of firepower, protection and speed.

[martinexsquaddie]

as its been designed for israeli conditions that are unique rather
than for facing off for ww111 onthe plains of west germany

[oldsoak]

Better for whom ? Both are excellent tanks. You pays your money and you takes yer choice. At this sort of level there are no dud tanks. Take the Abrams away from the Yanks and stick their crews in Merkavas ( or T90's ) and they'd still have made Baghdad the same day. If the crews are trained - to quote an Israeli friend "to fight like you've got six enemies and five bullets" - they will make a good tank a great tank.

[oldsoak]

Better for whom ? Both are excellent tanks. You pays your money and you takes yer choice. At this sort of level there are no dud tanks. Take the Abrams away from the Yanks and stick their crews in Merkavas ( or T90's ) and they'd still have made Baghdad the same day. If the crews are trained - to quote an Israeli friend "to fight like you've got six enemies and five bullets" - they will make a good tank a great tank.

[StealthMode]

ohhhhh boy... I got scared for a moment... thought I was gonna get tore up by you guys :slap:

I have learned from you all again...

So basically, they are both premium "tanks", but designed for different roles. Slightly differently in cost and deployment which offers advantages and disadvantagesto both depending on the primary role in battle.

Also it was noted that crew training is very important as well so even slight less performance on one aspect can become insignificant with a highly trained crew.... and it can be assumed that both the US and Israel have very good training.


Thanks for your input all... :hug:

[Javehn]

I must admit that this was the best thing i ever read . Thank you all for input , that was very informative . Specially want to thank to Shwabbo , for an accurate and overhelming analizis .
I have laughed until his comment . Then i started to cry .

[Schwabo Elite]

@Javehn
Why did u laugh and then cry??


@aktarian
As I mentioned in the beginning of WW2 countries used to use 2 types of tnaks, but what what you explain is according to the german modell.

The French, British and Americans used the doctrine I explaiend. Fast light tanks (tankette) to fill in the role of the old cavalry. That means with light armament, but great speed break though enemy lines and destroy targets. Examples are the French H39 and R35 as well as the British Light Mk IV and the US Light M3/M5.
The second type of tank were the heavier cruiser (sorry not crusader) types, as the undergunned Matilda I, the excellent Matilda II and of course the Valentine.
Russia followed this model up to a ceratin part and even used multi turret monsters, such as the T-28.
Germany however took a distinctive diffrent way. Though Germany build light and medium tanks as well, the light tanks were only "trial versions". Yes they were used until 1941 and the PzKpfw II even after that (as recon tank), but the ultimate goal was to field only medium tanks of the types II and IV. The Germans decided to field an anti-tank tank, the PzKpfw. III and an infantry support tank, the PzKpfw. IV. But the Wehrmacht soon learned that against the formidable T-34 neither tank could prove succesful and decided to outfit the PzKpfw. IV with a longer barreled 75mm cannon. They did not upgrade the PzKpfw. III because the turret would not allow a bigger gun to hold. The type IV tanks however could only be a momentary solution and the programm of building a heavy tank (which existed since 1938) was pushed, ending in the PzKpfw VI (Tiger). The Tiger, though full of problems, slow and with no good armor fixing (too vertical for full efficency), was able to stall the advancement of the Soveit armies from time to time. The PzKpfw. IV was followed (not replace though) by the PzKpfw. V (Panther), which is often regarded as the best tank in WW2. Though this is arguable, since the Red Army fielded the very good Iosef Stalin IS-2, the Kliment Voroshilov KV-2 and the T-34/85, which were all excellent tanks, the Panther can surely be regarded as the best tank outside the Soviet Union. The Panther combined mobility, protection and firepower to an extent where it could easily hold of multiple enemy tanks of lower quality (Sherman etc.) and still triumph.
Though the Germans build another, more advanced version of the Tiger, the PzKpfw. VI, Tiger II Ausf. B (this translates as Tank Mk. VI, Tiger II Series B), again this heavy monstrum was underpowered and too slow, though it was capable of destroying a Sherman up to a range of 2,000m and withstanding a Shermans gun up to a range as close as 200m, it was too heavy and at least two Panthers could be produced in the time and with the resources of one Tiger II.

The classification of MBT however did not come up until the cold war era. Until then tanks were alsways classified as "light", "medium" or "heavy". Though all tanks were now rather "medium" or even "heavy" tanks, light ones existed as well. The Soviet Union developed this into the concept of "one tank for every purpose" and designed the T-54/55 to be able to fill out the role a tank was supposed to do in (what was then) modern combat. Tanks were supposed to act together with infantry, being 100% mobile the armies of the cold war opponents did not need to worry what would happen to the infantry after the enemy lines had breached. Everyone could storm through the hole! The T-54/55 was capable of engaging any NATO tank of the time, especially since many countries still used the older Pershings or M-47. The T-54/55 was also able to protect itself against enemy infantry, support the own infantry, was quick, well armored (at least front and turret) and had a good gun.

SE

[Javehn]

Waw , Shwabo :roll:
It is a disscussion about Merkava and Abrams , you know , but if you wanna talk about ww2 and conseption of MBT then :

Just several mistake i found in your last post , and i am no way a real proffesional on this matter :

T-54/55 were done as Medium tanks . They were first tank generation (after WW2) . USSR done in that time also T-10 , as a heavy tank . Now , what you call an "MBT" was done in second generation tanks , when tank constructors started to bring heavy and medium tanks in one consept .
So : T-54/55 isn't main battle tank , and surtainly not first .
As a matter of fact , soviet troops were the last to receave tank that were "MBT" . T-64 , T-72 in late 60 begining of 70's , when M60 Leo's Chiftain and AMX-30 entered the service before them .

Heavy , light and medium tanks played different roles . They were planned like that , because in between of 2 world wars tanks were supposed to play 2 different roles . Cavallery/Cruiser tank , and infantry support tank - in simple first is fighting against tanks and charging ahead , while second is just infantry support . Now , tankets are not light tanks , they are tankets (or small tanks ) .

You said that Matilda is a cruiser tank , whie infact it is infantry support tank. Same as Valentine . Last thing for Valentine is to say that it is heavy crusaider tank , sence in weight of 16 T it was a light tank .
What the hell is Mark 4 ? British had their tanks with names and marks always .
M3 "General Lee/General Grant " isn't light tank , it was a medium tank .
I am not familiar with M5 , with M4 i am , Sherman . But on this point i can be wrong and there is M5 . Can be wrong .
Now , if you think that T-28 was a monster , then there is a surprise for you , they were considered as medium tanks . Real heavy tanks before WW2 were T-35 , T-100 and SMK in USSR .

About the first post , i don't even know where to start .

[Catch22]

Since you guys made this topic wider than originally intended by the author, I add one more technical question. How it is with Merkava and Abrams when it comes to fording water? Leo2 can make it up to about 4 meters deep as I remember, using that "chimney" thing for oxygen intake and as a commander post. Russian tanks use something similiar if I remember correctly - I'm not speak for Challenger or Leclerc either...

You guys happen to know?

PS. I would be surprised if Merk actually has this ability since it seems to be useful rather in european conditions not in the desert/hills.

[oldsoak]

4m for both using snorkel kits, so I'm told . ( I was told that this was a NATO requirement, but I dont believe that )

[Javehn]

Can Abrams or Merkava have a wing detachments , and get an airborn ? Very interesting to know .
Another question , if i want to unscrue the turret from Merkava or Abrams , how much times i need to turn it , until it falls ? Thank you .

Havurat metumtamim

[obd]

I heard the Merkava was somewhat slow. Wouldnt this basically give it the same problem as the German tiger had against US Shermans in WW2........On a tactical open battlefied the Merkava could be outmanuevered by the faster M1a2 and the 120mm depleated shell Im sure cold take down a Merkava with one hit anyway. Not to mention the newer missiles put on Bradley and experimented with put on Abrams can kill ANY tank in world, including the M1a2......

Also m1a2 can also fit applique armor......most tanks can and there are new missiles to defeat this on all tanks anyways.....

Also what is range of Merkava.........

Either way both are great tanks but if I had to put a 5 vs. 5 in a mixed geogrpahy I would put my money on the US crews with m1a2 who have far more recent experience in large armored battles and formations.....I think Israelis would probably better survive a Chechnya style urban battle against RPG armed guerrillas ...hmm.well US tank crews did that too in Iraq 2 war....many cases of excellent tactics used against Iraqi Fedayeen and massed RPG militia´s.. Basically Iraqi´s took lesson of Chechnya and tried to apply them against US troops but tactics failed completely. Only very few Abrams lost and those lost were ¨luck¨kills. Example would be sniper killing of Abrams driver which them drove of bridge into river with crew drowning.

Most hits on Abrams of standard RPGs and the crew as fine and at most there was a mobility kill on it but most of time hardly a dent in armor.....

I know of one case where an advanced Russian AT missile was used on truck mount which managed to get in between US lines and take a rear shot at Abrams. Even when hit in most vulnerable area which was in top rear the crew survived unharmed and those images of burned out Abrams was due to US forces attempting to destroy it before abandoning it and not due to Russian missile........They eventually killed the vehicle that launched missile and retrieved launcher and spare missiles and thats when realized it was one of Russian most potent and advanced designs..........so even that could only score mobility kill.

Kinda funny how a multi million missile cant take out crew yet a bunch of hundred year old dynamite can do the trick against any tank crew, as in case of Merkava kills by Palestinians............

I also remmember a story from ¨Orion¨book written by a tank commander from Gulf War 1 of a m1 Abrams tank that lost its treads behind enemy lines and didnt want it to fall ito enemy hands so tried to shoot it with m1a1. Two m1a1s shot at it several times from close range at its most vulnerable spots and couldnt kill it. Eventually it was towed back for research at Aberdeen........testing showed no internal damage. If crew was in tank they would have survived all the hits.....Only damage was the thrown track, lots of damage to the gear stowage racks, antennas, thermal sites, etc.... but none to armor......interesting and kinda funny too.....

[AirZone]

Havurat metumtamim

rofl rofl rofl rofl

hibrish ownz j00

[Javehn]

http://www.angelfire.com/ab5/WWTanks/Israel/Tanks/Merkava/Merkava1.jpg

That one is Merkava 3 , right ?

[citizen-k]

http://www.angelfire.com/ab5/WWTanks/Israel/Tanks/Merkava/Merkava1.jpg

That one is Merkava 3 , right ?

המספר שם זה איזור חיוג?

[Javehn]

ההה , לא
זה מרכבה שתיים , אבל אני רוצה לראות אם המפגרים האילו יודעים להבדיל בכלל ביניהם .
אחד פה ממש עיצבן אותי , גרמני המטומטם אוכל זיתים שוואבו עילית הזה לא יודע מהחיים שלו טמבל ערס , תקרא עמוד ראשון

[Schwabo Elite]

I heard the Merkava was somewhat slow. Wouldnt this basically give it the same problem as the German tiger had against US Shermans in WW2........On a tactical open battlefied the Merkava could be outmanuevered by the faster M1a2 and the 120mm depleated shell Im sure cold take down a Merkava with one hit anyway. Not to mention the newer missiles put on Bradley and experimented with put on Abrams can kill ANY tank in world, including the M1a2......


Indeed that is what all of us are explaining up there. And this is why the Merkava won't be used on open ground. Besides the Israelis would only fight technological less advanced countries and right now the Merkava serves as an infantry support tank... No wonder it does well. Not that I think it's bad, but it couldn't proof in open battle yet... :)

The Merkava uses a 120mm gun as well, though I don't know how the 120mm INI compares to the superb Rheinmetall 120mm of the Abrams and the Leopard 2.

Of wich experimental missiles for Abrams and Bradley are you talking. As far as I know the Bradley is armed with TOW. Which surely is a good missile, but despite that it is not the newest weapon available I would doubt it could penetrate a Leopard 2 A6 turret armor or an Abrams M1A2 turret armor with certainty. Better target the weak spots...

SE

[S'13]

I heard the Merkava was somewhat slow. Wouldnt this basically give it the same problem as the German tiger had against US Shermans in WW2........On a tactical open battlefied the Merkava could be outmanuevered by the faster M1a2

M1a2 top speed: 48 kph

Merkava MK 4 top speed: over 60 kph

[cut]

What did they update on the Mk4? (compared to the Mk3 I mean)

[UoUo]

Besides the Israelis would only fight technological less advanced countries and right now the Merkava serves as an infantry support tank
SE

The Egypt people will disagree with you...since they got the M1A1 and They still more or less a possibility enemy in the future.

[citizen-k]

I heard the Merkava was somewhat slow. Wouldnt this basically give it the same problem as the German tiger had against US Shermans in WW2........On a tactical open battlefied the Merkava could be outmanuevered by the faster M1a2 and the 120mm depleated shell Im sure cold take down a Merkava with one hit anyway. Not to mention the newer missiles put on Bradley and experimented with put on Abrams can kill ANY tank in world, including the M1a2......


Indeed that is what all of us are explaining up there. And this is why the Merkava won't be used on open ground. Besides the Israelis would only fight technological less advanced countries and right now the Merkava serves as an infantry support tank... No wonder it does well. Not that I think it's bad, but it couldn't proof in open battle yet... :)

The Merkava uses a 120mm gun as well, though I don't know how the 120mm INI compares to the superb Rheinmetall 120mm of the Abrams and the Leopard 2.

Of wich experimental missiles for Abrams and Bradley are you talking. As far as I know the Bradley is armed with TOW. Which surely is a good missile, but despite that it is not the newest weapon available I would doubt it could penetrate a Leopard 2 A6 turret armor or an Abrams M1A2 turret armor with certainty. Better target the weak spots...

SE

I know nothing about tanks and it appears to be neither do you ;)

rofl rofl rofl "won't be used on open grounds" rofl rofl rofl

open explorer

type "www.google.com"

search for "golan merkava"

click the 1st link you see...

[citizen-k]

What did they update on the Mk4? (compared to the Mk3 I mean)

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/MerkavaMk4.html

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

http://www.defense-update.com/directory/merkava4.htm

[cut]

cheers citizen-k

[Javehn]

What are you talking about , Citi-K ? I enjoyed Shwabbo posts , they are most refreshing and innovating for me .
I thout that i served for 3 years in Merkava , and it is a tank . And today i learned , that i served on a tracktor , courtesy of Shwabbo . I wasted 3 years on a damn catterpilar .


In total the Merkava can be compared to the Abrams, but the result of the comparison would be devastating for the Merkava and unfair, too. It is no MBT and it wasn't designed as one

What Armor academy you graduated , Shwabbo ?

[citizen-k]

What are you talking about , Citi-K ? I enjoyed Shwabbo posts , they are most refreshing and innovating for me .
I thout that i served for 3 years in Merkava , and it is a tank . And today i learned , that i served on a tracktor , courtesy of Shwabbo . He is probably graduant of armor officers academy .

rofl

What do I know? a simple IDF's green beret soldier :|

[citizen-k]

Can Abrams or Merkava have a wing detachments , and get an airborn ? Very interesting to know .
Another question , if i want to unscrue the turret from Merkava or Abrams , how much times i need to turn it , until it falls ? Thank you .

Havurat metumtamim

It was tested with Merkava:

http://www.4crete.gr/downloads/Images/merkava.jpg

Don't know about the Abrams though :roll:

[Javehn]

Well , this one is on a lift off . Backle up your sitbelts , ladies and gentlements . So i guess they both are airborn . Thanks

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/m1a2-uploadontrk.jpg

[littlefrench]

I think it's difficult to compare those 2 tanks, the merk will be better than the other moderns tanks (Abraham, Leo, Leclerc, Challenger...)in Middle East and will have more difficultys in Europe or in other temperate area.

[oldsoak]

Javehn said

I thout that i served for 3 years in Merkava , and it is a tank . And today i learned , that i served on a tracktor , courtesy of Shwabbo . I wasted 3 years on a damn catterpilar .

you mean to say yourt not some hot shot Merkava tanky ? But you said
you were ! :D

btw how did the exams go ? good i hope.

[Javehn]

Well , i finished them while ago , other wise i wouldn't post here like crazy . Damn electricity / But i did good :D .
I thought i were , but today thank to Shwabbo i reallised that sence Merkava isn't a tank , then i am not a tanker .

Edit (thanks :D ) : Hey , i have another question : If i had a flat tire in one of the tank wheels , should i replace them all , or just this particular wheel ?

[citizen-k]

Well , i finished them while ago , other wise i wouldn't post here like crazy . Damn electricity / But i did good :D .
I thought i were , but today thank to Shwabbo i reallised that sence Merkava isn't a tank , then i am not a tanker .

Hey , i have another question : If i had a pancher in one of the tank wheels , should i replace them all , or just this particular wheel ?

pancher=flat tire

[Javehn]

Can Abrams or Merkava have a wing detachments , and get an airborn ? Very interesting to know .
Another question , if i want to unscrue the turret from Merkava or Abrams , how much times i need to turn it , until it falls ? Thank you .

Havurat metumtamim

It was tested with Merkava:

http://www.4crete.gr/downloads/Images/merkava.jpg

Don't know about the Abrams though :roll:

Does insurrance policy covering this accident ??

P.S : Another question - I have misplaced my tank keys , and security bipper from the tank . What should i do ????

[Javehn]

I am bored , so more corrections to Shwabbo . I still don't talking about your first post , too shamefull .

You last post :


ndeed that is what all of us are explaining up there. And this is why the Merkava won't be used on open ground

In Hebrew Golan Hights called "Ramat Hagolan" . In translation , "Golan platto" . Understand the hint ?


and right now the Merkava serves as an infantry support tank

:cantbeli:


Not that I think it's bad, but it couldn't proof in open battle yet

I thought Merk 1 prooved itself very good in 82 , in "open battle " , and Merk 2 and 3 were developed according to the lessons from that war , and world tank development .


The Merkava uses a 120mm gun as well, though I don't know how the 120mm INI compares to the superb Rheinmetall 120mm of the Abrams and the Leopard 2.

"INI" 120mm (IMI) compares pretty good , and even better then superb Rheinmetall (x)M256 (sorry Ivy) .


Of wich experimental missiles for Abrams and Bradley are you talking. As far as I know the Bradley is armed with TOW. Which surely is a good missile, but despite that it is not the newest weapon available I would doubt it could penetrate a Leopard 2 A6 turret armor or an Abrams M1A2 turret armor with certainty. Better target the weak spots...


It can penetrate a turret armor of both tanks without a problem , but you should know that .It's all about hitting the spot .

Now you understnad Shwabbo why i laughed , and after your post i started to cry ?

[oldsoak]

I know you Israelis are a pretty independent lot; but how much of your budget goes on stuff the rest of the world is already building that you could build under licence and save on R&D costs ? The Negev and the Tavor are a case in point - you could licence build any rifle or LMG you want and save money, surely ? Yes I can understand the high end stuff like ECM gear, because you have to develop solutions in real time. Looking at the Merkava, I think we agree that it was developed to meet IDF requirements, not American, British or German ones. That said, is there any tank you could have purchased or licence built that would have met your requirements ? ( Israel very nearly bought the Chieftain, were it not for a lack of hutzpah on the part of the UK government - we were the losers there, but it lead to the development of the Merkava ). Just curious to know, becuase going it alone cant be cheap.

[Javehn]

It is important to preserve Israeli military industry . Allready too many things in Israel are US made, when they taking their aid money , and giving us their product . Israel nead to have perticular weapons to perticular area , and perticular tasks it is needed . In order not to make Israeli military industries to foreign concern (to which it is slowly becoming now ) , IDF is making an orders to it from time to time . Another good thing in it , that we can sell this weapon production (it's allready done with Polin , Singapur , China , Taiwan , even USA , Europian countries that had to change the production name in order to avoid political discomfort ) while Israel can't have dividents if the assembly line would be in USA . But offcorse , we still don't have enough money , like in case of Tavor assembly line that had to be passed to US .

About the Merkava , you were a bit misguided by some writers here . It was designed to operate in best at Golan hights territory , but it can operate as well in any other place , and probably even better . One example , it's track , track suspention and amortization system were designed to pass the rough terrain of Golan , while M1 would loose half of it's tracks and suspention there after couple hours driving .

[oldsoak]

Fair point. If we ever design another tank in the UK, I hope we go for something with the Merkava layout but tailored for us.

[aktarian]

I heard the Merkava was somewhat slow. Wouldnt this basically give it the same problem as the German tiger had against US Shermans in WW2........

Urban myth. Mk 1s were underpowered due to unavability of more powerfull motors so they put 900 hp engine in it. With Mk 3 this was raised to 1.200 and with Mk 4 to 1.500 hp which comfortablly places them in ~20hp/tonne class where most of modern tanks are.



P.S : Another question - I have misplaced my tank keys , and security bipper from the tank . What should i do ????

Break the window (use either rock or, if that doesn't work, Spike) then just put soem wires together like they do in the movies. :lol:

[aktarian]

About the Merkava , you were a bit misguided by some writers here . It was designed to operate in best at Golan hights territory , but it can operate as well in any other place , and probably even better . One example , it's track , track suspention and amortization system were designed to pass the rough terrain of Golan , while M1 would loose half of it's tracks and suspention there after couple hours driving .

Not to mention it's more comfortable to ride in even across roughest terrain. Basically you can drive MErkava over rough terrain and crew woun't feel anything while Abrams crew will have all bones shaken up.

[Luxembourger]

in average Leopard 2A2 beats both ..

[Javehn]

in average Leopard 2A2 beats both ..

:cantbeli:

Just finished writting about it on other thread .

[Operation Ivy]

in average Leopard 2A2 beats both ..

how is that?

[aktarian]

in average Leopard 2A2 beats both ..

:cantbeli:

At least use more modern versions as example.....

[Javehn]

hehe , just found this nice picture on israeli-weapons . The right guy was commander of my battalion . The left guy is head of Merkava project .
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/merkava_end.jpg

[AirZone]

Merkava is not a MBT ?!?!??! rofl rofl rofl rofl
one of the dumbest things i ever heard in my life

but sorry guys... MK3 > A1
(you might argue with me but israeli tank crews are one of the best if not the best crews in the world)

and about MK4 and A2.. well in the tech thingy israel is not far behind and in some areas ahead like some one smart said every country makes thier unique tank for thier unique needs

hell.. who need a tank ? wheres a ori with his gil's ? :D

Javehn
חחחחח הרגת אותי עם הציניות שלך rofl rofl