Quoted: How much does the Merkava 4 cost per unit?

I do not know that.  I don't know the economics of things, I just blow them up.  
Sorry to end this conversation, but I am headed to rack out, got work in the morning.

-Ben

Quoted: Quoted: How much does the Merkava 4 cost per unit? I do not know that.  I don't know the economics of things, I just blow them up.   Sorry to end this conversation, but I am headed to rack out, got work in the morning. -Ben

Thanks anyway. The reason I asked, I read that they cost "significantly less" than the Abrams, "by millions". I assume the M1A2 is about a $6 million machine, so the Merkava 4 must cost in the neighborhood of $3 million if I were guessing.

Maybe we should order some Merkavas?

Oh, BTW, an Israeli site I was reading seemed to indicate the Abrams was the better MBT in open terrain. But the Merkava was better in mountainous and urban terrain. I'll buy that. Seems each excels in the arena it was designed to operate in.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How much does the Merkava 4 cost per unit? I do not know that.  I don't know the economics of things, I just blow them up.   Sorry to end this conversation, but I am headed to rack out, got work in the morning. -Ben Thanks anyway. The reason I asked, I read that they cost "significantly less" than the Abrams, "by millions". I assume the M1A2 is about a $6 million machine, so the Merkava 4 must cost in the neighborhood of $3 million if I were guessing. Maybe we should order some Merkavas? Oh, BTW, an Israeli site I was reading seemed to indicate the Abrams was the better MBT in open terrain. But the Merkava was better in mountainous and urban terrain. I'll buy that. Seems each excels in the arena it was designed to operate in.

Merkavas would be nice for the kind of wars we seem to be fighting, but......

We wont even buy 5.56 from the Isrealis for fear of angering our arab "friends"....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Oh, BTW, an Israeli site I was reading seemed to indicate the Abrams was the better MBT in open terrain. But the Merkava was better in mountainous and urban terrain. I'll buy that. Seems each excels in the arena it was designed to operate in. The Merkava is rather a 'one trick pony' with protection being the imperative over all other considerations, almost a mobile pill box if you will. It's designed to stand it's ground and slug it out with waves of enemy armour, it is not a balanced design like the US/UK tanks. ANdy

You could also say tanks that sacrifice all round protection in favor of frontal armor are in fact less balanced then the Merk. The Merk is designed to fight other tanks in open country, it is designed to fight an insurgency in an urban enviroment, the MK III and IV have 1500 hp diesels and suspension that allow for impressive molbility. Its fire control system is every bit as advanced as anyone elses, it can fire on the move and is just at home in open terrain as it is in the city.

The Chally and M1A2 are great tanks, but I would rather ride in a Merk IV, given the nature of war today.  

Somehow I doubt the likelihood of another true tank war against industrialized nations.  Air power would reign supreme over the massive supply lines required to wage tank war.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Oh, BTW, an Israeli site I was reading seemed to indicate the Abrams was the better MBT in open terrain. But the Merkava was better in mountainous and urban terrain. I'll buy that. Seems each excels in the arena it was designed to operate in. The Merkava is rather a 'one trick pony' with protection being the imperative over all other considerations, almost a mobile pill box if you will. It's designed to stand it's ground and slug it out with waves of enemy armour, it is not a balanced design like the US/UK tanks. ANdy You could also say tanks that sacrifice all round protection in favor of frontal armor are in fact less balanced then the Merk. The Merk is designed to fight other tanks in open country, it is designed to fight an insurgency in an urban enviroment, the MK III and IV have 1500 hp diesels and suspension that allow for impressive molbility. Its fire control system is every bit as advanced as anyone elses, it can fire on the move and is just at home in open terrain as it is in the city. The Chally and M1A2 are great tanks, but I would rather ride in a Merk IV, given the nature of war today.   Only the Mk 4 Merkava has come close to being a balanced design, all the others were compromised to varying degree. The initial design, right up to the current is fixated on crew survivability over all other aspects. British designers, (and I would imagine the US ones too), feel that puttng then engine up front is a flawed concept. You put the engine were it is most likely to be hit and use it as part of the 'armor' package. Lose the engine, lose the tank. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/merkava.htm

I do not believe the current Merks depend on the power pack stopping much, rather the 30" or so of armor in the nose is what they count on.

And we lost a number of tanks due to engine hits, from rear hits by light weapons, given real world situations and tactics, you are far more likely to take it in the rear nowadays. Well balanced? US and Brit tanks are well balanced for fighting WWIII, against frontal attack from hordes of Soviet tanks. We are now trying to to make our tanks more like the Merk by adding "packages" that improve overall protection and combat capability in urban, low intensity, guerrilla type wars.

The Merk, all models, was designed to fight exactly the kind of wars we see today in the enviroment we are fighting it in.

And they look pretty mobile for a pillbox.  

The M1 tank is the sole reason there was any need for a 4th variant of the Merkava in the first place. Look at all the Abrams tanks Egypt is buying from us. They have a very sizable fleet of them. The Israelis are concerned by this. They see Egypt buying all these tanks and building up their military and thinking "hmmmmm". Afterall, Egypt doesn't really have any pressing needs at the moment. So naturally many Israeli's are concerned they may be building up for another go against them. At the least, there's always concern that Mubarak could be replaced by someone else with a much different agenda.

I know many of us get pissed at the Israelis selling stuff to the Chinese. But really, when you think about it, we've been doing the same thing to them for years. Look at all the stuff we've sold Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Export sales of military equipment are almost a must these days. With costs where they are, many systems could not even get fielded without the export sales to help out. I just wish we'd be more careful who we sell stuff to, the same as I wish the Israelis would do likewise. We are allies, therefore we need to better look out for each other's interests.  

Someone bump this when our resident tankers are awake. I'm done for now.

That much is good Andy. I understand that 40% of the parts for Egyptian M1's are locally produced and what we provide them with is an "M1 kit" for the completion of the tank.

Just how less capable they are than our own tanks, I do not know. But I am glad that we are least not selling them tanks straight off our assembly lines.

I probably have more respect for Egypt as a nation than anyone in the Middle East/North Africa region. So I feel better about selling them military hardware than I do, say, the Saudi's, for example. But sometimes I question whether or not we should sell any of the nations in this region equipment. Let em buy T-72's from the Ruskies, as those are easily disposed of.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What's the one the Israelis use? Merkava Let the winner of the M1A2/ChallengerII battle take on (and lose to) the Merkava IV. M1A2>Challenger M1A2>Merkava I don't think the Merkava has been in actual tank-on-tank combat yet. Both the Challenger and Abrams have been in combat before, and both are good systems. That said, I beleive the Merkava is a fair bit smaller than either the Abrams or Challenger and I'd suspect that it would be smoked by either too. ben

+1

M1A1/M1A2 is probably the best there is. I'm not too fond of the M1A2 SEP with all the fancy electronics. Doesn't the .50 gunner have to pop the hatch on the M1A2 SEP? The old M1A1 simulator I played with at Knox let me sit inside the turret with the .50 controls.

Also the Leopard II and Challenger both have pretty long barrels. The M1 w/ 120mm barrel is shorter and more manueverable in tight urban environments.

Quoted: Quoted: M1A3 with TUSK would give anybody a run for their money. I think we were all watching the same History Channel show (2100 Eastern this evening), anyone else think it odd the British train the loader to be second in command?  IIRC, the loader in an Abrams is the least-trained crew member, with the gunner being second in command. Kharn M1A3? I've heard of M1A2 SEP, and I know of the TUSK upgrades, but M1A3? Not familiar with that designation.

Apparently I spend too much time talking to my friend in the tank group at the local proving ground and not keeping up on what the troops have, he mentioned it the other day while we were at the bar. I guess its just their name for an M1 with the packages they're working on.

Quoted: M1A1/M1A2 is probably the best there is. I'm not too fond of the M1A2 SEP with all the fancy electronics. Doesn't the .50 gunner have to pop the hatch on the M1A2 SEP? The old M1A1 simulator I played with at Knox let me sit inside the turret with the .50 controls.

TUSK adds a RWS station (.50cal, Mk19 or any weapon that fits on a standard pintel mount), complete remote control of the weapon, including zoom and ballistic compensation, you only have to pop the hatch to reload. It also adds a gun shield and thermal sight for the loader's .30cal, I think also it has limited remote-control abilities, not as extensive as the RWS's abilities.

Quoted: www.kampskolen.dk/images/Materiel-image/at4%20(454x406).JPG Nuff said game over nothing more to see here PWND! You paid WHAT for that flaming pile of rubble??!!

LOL, an AT-4!? At least show a weapon with a decent chance of screwing up a modern battle tank, the Javelin:


Kharn

The earlier version Merkavas were quite frankly dogs.  They had limited night capability, and speed was about half of that of the M1.  HP/ton ratio was about half as well, so acceleration was no great shakes either.  Think of an M60 that could take hits all day long and that's pretty much what the Merkava was.  However for a first try at a tank design, it was pretty good.  The design team tailored it to Israel's requirements so well that it really didn't fit in anyone else's scheme at the time (remember this is the 70's, not the 21st Century).

One thing the tank design did do was take into account the previous tank battles that the Israelis had fought and used many of the lessons learned.  Things like the rear compartment for additional ammo storage gave the Merk 92 rounds on board (105mm), which was about 50% more rounds than anyone else.  The Israelis had some tanks run out of ammo in fights in the 73 war, and they figured carrying more rounds was a good idea, and reduced the logistics burden since they'd have to rearm less.  it really wasn't until later that the idea of using the back compartment for other things, like carrying wounded, dismounts, etc. came about in the heat of battle.  The earlier models with the 105mm had gone up against Sryian T-72s in Lebenon, and didn't have much trouble in dealing with them.

The Israelis had their uparmored M113's, which were a match speed wise to the slow Merkava, so they didn't think much more about it.  After the Gulf war showed speed, better night vision, and better fire control might be a good thing to have, the Israelis came out with succeding versions that adressed these issues.  The Mk4 is on par with the other world class tanks.

The biggest problem with the Merkava is cost.  Since no one else buys them, the production numbers are low, resulting in high unit cost.  The fact that much of it is made in Israel makes it very expensive as well.  Some components are made here in the US so US aid money can be used to buy them and ship them to Israel for assembly to the tank, but in the end the Merkava may just be too expensive for Israel to keep buying.  It would be much cheaper for them to use the US aid funds to buy the M1 than to have to use Israeli funds to buy Merkavas.  They logically want to keep a domestic tank production base operating, but they came close to shutting all production down last year due to money.  The Merkava is a source of pride, and politics and the desire to keep a production base makes it hard to not buy at least small batches.  That dosen't make things any less expensive though.

As for the MK4 Merkava eating up Challengers and M1's, that's total BS.  It's as much as saying a troop armed with a Galil will kill anyone armed with an M16.  Each design has good and bad things.  None have any real advantage over the other.  It's how a tool gets used that's important.

Ross

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What's the one the Israelis use? Merkava Let the winner of the M1A2/ChallengerII battle take on (and lose to) the Merkava IV. M1A2>Challenger M1A2>Merkava I don't think the Merkava has been in actual tank-on-tank combat yet. Both the Challenger and Abrams have been in combat before, and both are good systems. That said, I beleive the Merkava is a fair bit smaller than either the Abrams or Challenger and I'd suspect that it would be smoked by either too. ben +1 M1A1/M1A2 is probably the best there is. I'm not too fond of the M1A2 SEP with all the fancy electronics. Doesn't the .50 gunner have to pop the hatch on the M1A2 SEP? The old M1A1 simulator I played with at Knox let me sit inside the turret with the .50 controls. Also the Leopard II and Challenger both have pretty long barrels. The M1 w/ 120mm barrel is shorter and more manueverable in tight urban environments.

Leo II has the same gun as the M1.  One of the complaints from Iraq is that the gun of the M1 is too long

As a 19K20 (M1 Armor crewman) who started out on the '60 series 24 years ago and has never BEEN on a Challenger I vote for the M-1

It WOULD be nice though if the M-1 became more a "Tank" than the "Tank-Destroyer" it started out (And has been developed) as.  The old M-60 had some terrible weak spots but you could still throw some fairly nasty (Non-Tank killing) and relatively inexpensive rounds (HEP, APERS, WP) down-range from it.

Quoted: Challenger II vs M1A2…  Best tanks in the world… both Combat Proven in the only testing ground that matters. M1A2 is a faster, but the Challenger drinks less fuel… Agility… nothing in it Sights/Optics… nothing in it Armour… Challenger has much has better protection than M1A2 thanks to it's add on Combat Armour Pack. ERA on the front, CHOBHAM side skirts. One Challenger in the fighting in Basra received 21 RPG hits in an ambush and was undamaged, although the crews pants may have needed some 'maintenance' afterwards!!. Gun… currently… M1A2 has the better Long Rod rounds, but Challenger has HESH.   Gun accuracy… Challengers riled gun is more accurate then the smooth bore 120mm… a Challenger holds the record for the longest range verified tank kill. However… the Challengers are to be retrofitted with an L55 120mm smoothbore gun … so there will be nothing in it. Crews… nothing in it. Reliability… nothing in it. Habitability… Challenger wins hands down thanks to that envy of all US arnoured people… the British built in Boiling Vessel!!!! Constant hot water, tea/coffee and food on demand Which is the best tank?… nothing in it really. Point though… ONLY the US, UK & Australian Challenger and Abrahms carry the 'real deal' CHOBHAM armour, no one else gets it as it's exclusive to a 'select' club. The Leopard and Merkava do not carry CHOBHAM… it's their own brand indegenous stuff and not as good. ANdy

That was a wordy way of saying what I said on pg 1.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What's the one the Israelis use? Merkava Let the winner of the M1A2/ChallengerII battle take on (and lose to) the Merkava IV. M1A2>Challenger M1A2>Merkava I don't think the Merkava has been in actual tank-on-tank combat yet. Both the Challenger and Abrams have been in combat before, and both are good systems. That said, I beleive the Merkava is a fair bit smaller than either the Abrams or Challenger and I'd suspect that it would be smoked by either too. ben +1 M1A1/M1A2 is probably the best there is. I'm not too fond of the M1A2 SEP with all the fancy electronics. Doesn't the .50 gunner have to pop the hatch on the M1A2 SEP? The old M1A1 simulator I played with at Knox let me sit inside the turret with the .50 controls. Also the Leopard II and Challenger both have pretty long barrels. The M1 w/ 120mm barrel is shorter and more manueverable in tight urban environments. Leo II has the same gun as the M1.  One of the complaints from Iraq is that the gun of the M1 is too long

Leo II is getting or did get a longer gun with a supposedly longer range, to match the Brit's 120. 120LL?

Comparing both up close I'd have to say the Abrams is a better made machine- as a former 11B / infantry- I can tell you that you are kidding yourself if you think you stand a chance against these monstrosities - so you got a missile team- OK- that's one down- how about the rest of his friends that can shoot farther than you and have thermal? All you have to do is be around an M1 when it is sending it on it's way downrage and it quickly grants you perspective on where the infantry stands in the grand scheme of war....

Quoted: Comparing both up close I'd have to say the Abrams is a better made machine- as a former 11B / infantry- I can tell you that you are kidding yourself if you think you stand a chance against these monstrosities - so you got a missile team- OK- that's one down- how about the rest of his friends that can shoot farther than you and have thermal? All you have to do is be around an M1 when it is sending it on it's way downrage and it quickly grants you perspective on where the infantry stands in the grand scheme of war....

Yep. In the hills, mountains, passes, and swamps, doing ambushes, hit and run tactics, and raiding supply trains instead of sitting out in the open with a missile team and getting their asses shot off by tanks like you were taught to do.

Krasnovian KVTs smoke M1A2s all day, no problem.

An APDSFS round can cut through several feet of HA plates, it'll make short work of the engine and I'd think the engine wouldn't hinder it much.  Maybe it'll do more to disrupt and dissipate the effect of a HEAT round if it penetrates the frontal armor.

Quoted: I don't think the Merkava has been in actual tank-on-tank combat yet. Both the Challenger and Abrams have been in combat before, and both are good systems. That said, I beleive the Merkava is a fair bit smaller than either the Abrams or Challenger and I'd suspect that it would be smoked by either too.

IIRC the Israelis engaged Syrian T-72s with early model Merkavas during the Lebanon invasion.

Quoted: Ask yourself which one is the most proven....

No Challenger I's were lost in DS. The longest recorder tank-tank kill occurred when a Challenger I took out an Iraqi tank at 2.5 miles.

No Challenger II's were lost in OIF to enemy fire, and the British sent them into Basra.

Challenger II, supposedly has uprated Chobam called "Dorchester". Diesel engine, and a rifled 120mm gun, need to fire HESH, or "squash-head" rounds. Also has a neat "up-armor" kit to cover tracks, cut down dust while on the move etc. A very reliable tank.

Leopard2A5/A6 Chobam armor with addtional modular armor, especially on the turret front. Diesel engine. Uses a 120L55 allowing higher velocity then the US 120L44 used on the Abrams. Germans do not use depleted uranium rounds.

Merkava IV, 120 gun, 3 remote controlled machine guns, A/C in the crew compartment, and a 50 gallon water cooler. Is designed with software to allow it to engage low flying helicopters with it's main gun . Is also reputed to be the heaviest current MBT. Can also carry a squad in the rear compartment of the tank. Not as quick as other MBT's, but allegedly better in rought terrain.

Abrams, Chobam armor, 120L44 gun, 3 MG's. A fast, quick tank, also has a wild apetite for fuel 500 gallons per day, per tank, at idle. Many European tanks have small diesel APU's, so they can shut down the main engine, but be ready to fight, while using very little fuel.

Could also go into the K1-Korea, LeClerc-France, Arjun-India, Type 90(?) Japan, etc.

The 4 I listed are the 4 best in the world. Abrams has had some shortcomings brought to light in urban fighting.

Manuever warfare - Abrams

Tank-Tank warfare - Tough say, all 4 are very tough to kill, and have incredible first shot hit ability.

Urban warfare - Merkava IV

Support - (Fuel, relaibility) Challenger II or Leopard 2A5/A6

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That was a wordy way of saying what I said on pg 1. But you forgot the 'tie breaker'……… the Boiling Vessel!!! ANdy

I know Strykers all have heated water supply systems for MREs, you sure the Abrams doesnt have one?

Kharn

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That was a wordy way of saying what I said on pg 1. But you forgot the 'tie breaker'……… the Boiling Vessel!!! ANdy I know Strykers all have heated water supply systems for MREs, you sure the Abrams doesnt have one? Kharn

As does our Bradley IFV M2A2ODS models and above.

Fascinating thread.

Quoted: Another British idea/invention copied by you guys! ANdy

No, ours isnt for tea, its for coffee.  Totally different and original idea.

Kharn

Quoted: Quoted: Another British idea/invention copied by you guys! ANdy No, ours isnt for tea, its for coffee.  Totally different and original idea. Kharn

And MRE's....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That was a wordy way of saying what I said on pg 1. But you forgot the 'tie breaker'……… the Boiling Vessel!!! ANdy I know Strykers all have heated water supply systems for MREs, you sure the Abrams doesnt have one? Kharn As does our Bradley IFV M2A2ODS models and above. Another British idea/invention copied by you guys! ANdy

It's all good.

Great thread guys. Thanks for sharing.

I noticed the other day they are starting to add AC to military trucks.

Will that be forth coming for tanks?

Quoted: Great thread guys. Thanks for sharing. I noticed the other day they are starting to add AC to military trucks. Will that be forth coming for tanks?

It should be my friend in Iraq says the bradley guys are naked except for overalls and then once inside they get totally naked. Would be better to wear Nomex and have AC. ESPECIALLY in a Brad.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That was a wordy way of saying what I said on pg 1. But you forgot the 'tie breaker'……… the Boiling Vessel!!! ANdy I know Strykers all have heated water supply systems for MREs, you sure the Abrams doesnt have one? Kharn

Yes, the Abrams have a ration heater inside the turret. Heating an MRE/pogey bait/spam, etc. on the exhaust grill was faster though.

Quoted: Another British idea/invention copied by you guys! ANdy

Next you Brits will be claiming you invented the Tank!  

Quoted: Quoted: Great thread guys. Thanks for sharing. I noticed the other day they are starting to add AC to military trucks. Will that be forth coming for tanks? It should be my friend in Iraq says the bradley guys are naked except for overalls and then once inside they get totally naked. Would be better to wear Nomex and have AC. ESPECIALLY in a Brad.

It's really quite disgusting to know that our tanks, armored vehicles, trucks, etc. were not/have not been fitted with A/C. Wearing boots, uniform, helmet, and then the stress of combat in a 100 degree plus environment sealed inside a vehicle didn't mandate the integration of A/C into these things I suppose. Was this another brilliant idea to save a few bucks at the expense of the fighting man, yet again?

Sorry for the hijack.  

I have machined both tank bodies and turrets for the goverment contractors at our facility. We built several maching centers for production of them for both the US England and Eygpt. I can tell you the Eygpt bodies are not the same specs nor as thick or hard. Nothing like working with cameras watching every move and being checked at metal detector everytime  you leave the area. They are very very serious about keeping that alloy and it's makeup secret. I have no idea which shoots or moves better.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: M1A3 with TUSK would give anybody a run for their money. I think we were all watching the same History Channel show (2100 Eastern this evening), anyone else think it odd the British train the loader to be second in command?  IIRC, the loader in an Abrams is the least-trained crew member, with the gunner being second in command. Kharn M1A3? I've heard of M1A2 SEP, and I know of the TUSK upgrades, but M1A3? Not familiar with that designation. Apparently I spend too much time talking to my friend in the tank group at the local proving ground and not keeping up on what the troops have, he mentioned it the other day while we were at the bar. I guess its just their name for an M1 with the packages they're working on. Quoted: M1A1/M1A2 is probably the best there is. I'm not too fond of the M1A2 SEP with all the fancy electronics. Doesn't the .50 gunner have to pop the hatch on the M1A2 SEP? The old M1A1 simulator I played with at Knox let me sit inside the turret with the .50 controls. TUSK adds a RWS station (.50cal, Mk19 or any weapon that fits on a standard pintel mount), complete remote control of the weapon, including zoom and ballistic compensation, you only have to pop the hatch to reload. It also adds a gun shield and thermal sight for the loader's .30cal, I think also it has limited remote-control abilities, not as extensive as the RWS's abilities. Quoted: www.kampskolen.dk/images/Materiel-image/at4%20(454x406).JPG Nuff said game over nothing more to see here PWND! You paid WHAT for that flaming pile of rubble??!! LOL, an AT-4!? At least show a weapon with a decent chance of screwing up a modern battle tank, the Javelin: www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/antiarmor/JAVELIN/images/pic03-Javelin-sml.jpg Kharn

I spent alittle time at that proving ground in 84 as a 45k trainee.

Quoted: It's really quite disgusting to know that our tanks, armored vehicles, trucks, etc. were not/have not been fitted with A/C. Wearing boots, uniform, helmet, and then the stress of combat in a 100 degree plus environment sealed inside a vehicle didn't mandate the integration of A/C into these things I suppose. Was this another brilliant idea to save a few bucks at the expense of the fighting man, yet again? Sorry for the hijack.

The Army higher-ups believe giving the troops AC would cause them to become soft and unwilling to exit their vehicles to fight.  Only a select few vehicles have AC, usually due to computers, communications gear or other temperature-sensetive mission packages inside.

Kharn

Quoted: Quoted: Another British idea/invention copied by you guys! ANdy Next you Brits will be claiming you invented the Tank!

[cough]funny you should say that[/cough]

Quoted: Quoted: It's really quite disgusting to know that our tanks, armored vehicles, trucks, etc. were not/have not been fitted with A/C. Wearing boots, uniform, helmet, and then the stress of combat in a 100 degree plus environment sealed inside a vehicle didn't mandate the integration of A/C into these things I suppose. Was this another brilliant idea to save a few bucks at the expense of the fighting man, yet again? Sorry for the hijack.   The Army higher-ups believe giving the troops AC would cause them to become soft and unwilling to exit their vehicles to fight.  Only a select few vehicles have AC, usually due to computers, communications gear or other temperature-sensetive mission packages inside. Kharn

This is changing, however, with the addition of uparmor kits for wheeled vehicles, all of which have AC.