Rumour - Claims Azerbaijan has Merkava Mk 3
- Thread starter drg
- Start date
doing a quick google for this ...
In a Local Armenian Forum
In a Local Armenian Forum
and as usual the ever reliable and accurate Wiki
There's some other rumours floating around that a *cough* south east asian country has also acquired Merks too ... FWIW
This is nothing but a false rumor, all military ground equipement is either Russian or from Ukraine. They have purchased many T-72s directly from the Ukrainians in the last 7 years, one should ask what would they want with a handful of Merks when they would have a logistical challenge just keeping them running and firing. The IDF would not sell them anyways especially a Merk 3 or 4.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7
Well...
Like i said above it seems like a POC...
YET, after i found out that Kazakhstan had 40 Boragh APCs from Iran, I'm probably a lot more careful about these types of rumour (ie more inclined to believe it is possible).
It seems a bit outlandish, but if these sales are true, then maybe there was an attempt by Iran and Israel to gain diplomatic clout in the area. After all, it seems that NATO (and the EU) is more inclined to be friendly to Azerbaijan than Turkey, and the US has frequently visited Azerbaijan (well Rumsfeld has) and called the country a friend.
Its pretty obvious there is an attempt on by the EU/NATO to show Azerbaijan love because of the recent BTC pipeline opening (and its possible extension to Italy by 2012). Anyways, Im getting off subject...
But yeah, is this a case of (perhaps, though not likely) diplomatic gamesmanship in Central Asia? Not likely, but ive heard some whopping rumours in my time, and most have turned out to be true, when it comes to arms procurement.
Like i said above it seems like a POC...
YET, after i found out that Kazakhstan had 40 Boragh APCs from Iran, I'm probably a lot more careful about these types of rumour (ie more inclined to believe it is possible).
It seems a bit outlandish, but if these sales are true, then maybe there was an attempt by Iran and Israel to gain diplomatic clout in the area. After all, it seems that NATO (and the EU) is more inclined to be friendly to Azerbaijan than Turkey, and the US has frequently visited Azerbaijan (well Rumsfeld has) and called the country a friend.
Its pretty obvious there is an attempt on by the EU/NATO to show Azerbaijan love because of the recent BTC pipeline opening (and its possible extension to Italy by 2012). Anyways, Im getting off subject...
But yeah, is this a case of (perhaps, though not likely) diplomatic gamesmanship in Central Asia? Not likely, but ive heard some whopping rumours in my time, and most have turned out to be true, when it comes to arms procurement.
Even if they do have Merkava's, what is 25 inexperienced tank's going to do? The tank is great, i am talking about the crew. I love the Merkava it has it's flaws/weaknesses but all tanks do. I am fond of the idea, of being able to throw troops in the back to act as a IFV.
Could you elaborate more on what those weakness and flaw issues are in regards to the Merkava 3. Is the Merkava specifically designed to carry troops.
The Merkava has enough room to transport 4 soldiers in the back. You sacrifice ammo but it's being used as a IFV.The front mounted mobility system. The engine, transmission and final drives, are all exposed to enemy fire. Although these systems are well armored to an extent, a big enough impact or penetration can disable them. I just cannot stress the idea that putting the stuff you want to protect the MOST, in the area thats going to take the most punishment. Israel says this is to add protection for the crew by providing another layer to absorb behind the armor effects.
But in 5 years of war in Iraq the front armor of the Challenger has proven just as durable as the Merkava, without the mobility risks and the Abrams has yet to be defeated from the front. Plus the Merkava has a dry turret rather than blow out panels. It keeps its ammo in individually separated canisters that are fire proof but not armored. Since the 120mm uses combustible cartridges, the risk that remains if a BAE detonation where to go off, leaving the blast with no where to go is a "Crew killer".
It's a great tank, but there are flaws. All tanks have flaws though, its just the matter of the crew, and Israeli tank crews are very well trained. They have been at war for decades.
I think that in the future "we could see more designs like the Merkava". It is a great tank and is one of the top tanks in the world. The Gun is massive and lethal out to far ranges. The fire control system is excellent and so is there armor, it's top of the line.
Look at there Armor protection level:
http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm
I wouldn't necessarily say that its being used as a "troop transport" all the time. But there have been many scenarios where they have used it as one.
Hope this helps clear stuff up:
Rossiman
Last edited:
Yep - thats what I figured, you don`t have clue on what you are talking about, nothing but rubbish.
you are nothing more than a internet cowboy who has a major malfunction in life going on.What you deem as a flaw the IDF views as a strong point inregards to engine pact placement in two areas:
1.Rough ground cross country movement.
2.Frontal armor protection which gives them a 20% increase over shaped charges.
You do realize that the turret on the Merkava 4 is modular in design.
The crew is protected by a blast proof door at the tank round access point that works and has saved lives.
You should use caution what you pick up on line, that link is set up for war gamers and I know for a fact that some of the information is false.
I need to make a correction in regards to the Merkava 3, it is offered for export by Sibat but still has no takers, countries have looked and tested but no sales.This is nothing but a false rumor, all military ground equipement is either Russian or from Ukraine. They have purchased many T-72s directly from the Ukrainians in the last 7 years, one should ask what would they want with a handful of Merks when they would have a logistical challenge just keeping them running and firing. The IDF would not sell them anyways especially a Merk 3 or 4.
You have your views and i have mine. Funny that you should say that this is false information. Go tell that to Zraver on Worldaffairsboard.com and he will tear you a new one. Why is it that so many Merkava's have been knocked out? Also the blast proof door, does not make up for individually combustible cannisters, It is still a crew killer.Yep - thats what I figured, you don`t have clue on what you are talking about, nothing but rubbish.
What you deem as a flaw the IDF views as a strong point inregards to engine pact placement in two areas:
1.Rough ground cross country movement.
2.Frontal armor protection which gives them a 20% increase over shaped charges.
You do realize that the turret on the Merkava 4 is modular in design.
The crew is protected by a blast proof door at the tank round access point that works and has saved lives.
You should use caution what you pick up on line, that link is set up for war gamers and I know for a fact that some of the information is false.
If Zraver has a account on here i would love to here sergeants go at it.
So, you think that there is no problem with the engine in the front?
The engine is the Second most important part to protect on the tank, after the Crew.
I got this information from Zraver on Worldaffairsboard.com, he is a tank sergeant/with a actual tank background. Argue about this with him, cause i can guarantee you will lose. People have already tried and numerous have failed, i would love to hear you "sergeants" argue about it. Do you actually have a tank background?
Last edited:
And just how many Merkavas have been knocked out.You have your views and i have mine. Funny that you should say that this is false information. Go tell that to Zraver on Worldaffairsboard.com and he will tear you a new one. Why is it that so many Merkava's have been knocked out? Also the blast proof door, does not make up for individually combustible cannisters, It is still a crew killer.
If Zraver has a account on here i would love to here sergeants go at it.
So, you think that there is no problem with the engine in the front?
The engine is the Second most important part to protect on the tank, after the Crew.
The blast proof door does what it is designed to do, contain a blast. What is killing the crews, fumes from the smoke in which the same thing will happen to a M1 series if the over pressure system is not turned on or if the turret hatches are not secured, to call the ammunition storage system flawed is calling most tanks out there flawed due to storage of ammunition inside of the hull, that is something that I would not have a argument on.
The IDF believes in the concept of the engine pact at the front of the hull for the best protection rating for the crew, this also offers them the ability to add additional tank ammunition which is important when fighting in a defensive position, ya know that they really do not have a large amount of real estate to play with in the event of a war, being in a hull down fighting position will only add to the crew protection factor along with the engine pact. The Merkava was not initially designed to be a offensive platform like the M1 or Leo series as a few examples I will mention. For the terrian that the Merkava series will most likely be called to fight in I would preferr that over my trusty M1A2 tank. Think about these factors:
1. Size of country
2. Opponents
3. Terrain
4. Experience, and they have lost alot of tanks in past wars.
If you really look at these factors you will understand why a past IDF general designed this magnifacent iron chariot like he did.
And yes - I guess you can say I may have a little experience in armor.
That information has been passed around and for the most part is nothing but pure BS.
You do have a point, but just a few questions i have. What is the difference in using blast proof doors over blow out panels?
M1A2
What is your view on the Merkeva's blast proof doors and individually separated canisters that are fire proof but not armored?
3 Merkevas where completley destroyed in Lebannon in 2006. While dozens where penetrated.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyxC_eOcwg8&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyxC_eOcwg8&feature=related[/ame]
I have no problem being corrected, but i would like to be treated with a little more respect. Saying that i am a "internet cowboy" with a major malfunction...
Last edited:
Merkava only uses a blast proof door to contain the blast from tank ammunition cook offs, while the M1 series uses blast proof doors and blow out panels, yes the blow off panels will divert the ammunition cook offs through the turret top which is a added bonus for the crew safety and it is a better system. Other benefits are the ease of replacing the racks and getting the tank back into combat which is a design feature, look at a loaders exposer when the access/blast proof door is opened on a M1 series, depending on where he grabs the next round he will have a average of 22 aft caps staring him in the face while a Merkava loader has one with the access door opened.
Who gave you those figures on the battlefield losses.
Also I think you should do the right thing and give someone on this forum a apology for that BS stunt that you pulled on Tanknet, that person has served his country with honor and you should be a shamed of yourself. I bet if your buddy Zraver knew about that stunt he would be pissed.
Perhaps you should ask Eckherl what his background is?
Rossiman, you need to seriously consider the above comment. News travels fast -esp between Mods. Ironduke is a member in here, and a few DT members are registered with WAFEckherl said:
I already gave a public apology. And thanks for the information on the blow out panels. I already knew how they worked, but its a little refreshing =).
Thank you, that is very noble of you and I apologize for calling you a internet cowboy with a major malfunction.
Figured that you knew about the top panels, but do you understand how the ammunition access point contain the round cook offs, that is what the armor protection level in regards to the door is based on.
And thank you for your apologizes. Yes, you explained it to me well.Thank you, that is very noble of you and I apologize for calling you a internet cowboy with a major malfunction.
Figured that you knew about the top panels, but do you understand how the ammunition access point contain the round cook offs, that is what the armor protection level in regards to the door is based on.