Talk:Merkava

Infobox

That thing is a monster. It takes up half the page. In the interests of cutting down on the size of it, can we come to a consensus on only stating the statistics for the Mark IV in the infobox (and state the other stats in their respective subsections?) No reason for the IB to be that huge. // 3R1C 19:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. I removed the information for previous version from the infobox and incorporated it into the article. // 3R1C 16:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

The statement: "...due in part to... bias within the U.K. Foreign Office" reflects an opinion from one side of the argument. Perhaps this article should be qualified with a 'the neutrality of this article is disputed' banner.

Absolutely, feel free to chop/cite/edit that as needed. Also, remember to sign your posts with ~~~~ // 3R1C 23:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed?

From the introduction:

"Being heavily armoured and highly mobile, it is one of the best protected tanks in the world."

Wouldn't a statement like that require sitation or be pure speculation?

I don't know about mobillity, but the protection issue is comon knowledge. The Merkva really is generally regarded as one of the best protected tanks in the world. OzoneO 08:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Common knowledge" is not a citation, and with all the features it has, at that weight, it CANNOT be as well-protected as an Abrams. There has to be a tradeoff. Article definitely needs more citations.Mzmadmike 19:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I have read (and I will try to find the cites when I get back home), the Merkava is easier to knock out than an Abrams, but the crew is better-protected, meaning higher probability of M-kill or F-kill, but lower probability of K-kill. The Dark 15:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to include a definition of those terms if you decide to incorporate them. I don't know how many people are familiar with them. I'm certainly not an expert in the field, but I don't know what they are, thats for sure. // 3R1C 16:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. I was getting a bit technical, since I know Mzmadmike is ex-military. In brief, an M-kill is a mobility kill, where the tank is no longer able to move. An F-kill is a firepower kill, where the weapons systems are no longer functioning or functioning at a greatly reduced rate (as in the case of fire control being knocked out). A K-kill is a catastrophic kill, where the tank is essentially destroyed, usually involving the death of the crew. They're all defined at Anti-tank warfare, but I should've thought of that first.

Unfortunately, the source I thought had the information on relative protection doesn't, so I'm still trying to dig up where I read about the Merkava compared to the Abrams. The Dark 00:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

69.165.183.10, 69.167.115.77

Our friend returned and reinserted his OR unsourced changes on a massive scale with this edit: 17:37, 18 January 2007 69.165.183.10 . I would simply revert, again, except that 68.80.207.22 has made some decent edits since then. They are minor edits that could be redone. --Shuki 17:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting obnoxious. Do we have any kind of recourse? // 3R1C 15:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Destruction

The M1 article states something about the destruction of tanks. But here it is not even mentioned that one Merkava 3 tank was destroyed in Gaza 16 Feb. 2002 by a bomb. [1] Performance in battle should be part of the article as well.--Stone 10:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like an isolated incident, not a serious performance issue. If you can find multiple instances of this occuring, then it might be notable enough. // 3R1C 14:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a isolated instances. To state the only Merkava 3 tank ever lost would show the outstanding performance. But this the only real fight it had ever and it shows also that the armament is not 100% safe against everything, which is not possible at all. The other point is that the articles showed a serious psycological effect of this destruction.--Stone 14:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I would cede the 100% safety issue if in fact there was a safety issue. The tank was blown up using an IED planted in the roadway. No armored vehicle that I know of can withstand that. It's implied that any tank is vulnerable to an IED of sufficient size. If the tank had fallen to small-arms fire or RPGs, this might be notable, but the fact that every MBT in the contemproary world is vulnerable to this weapon makes that tidbit unnotable. // 3R1C 17:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So long as it's verifiable, noting the loss of a front line tank in the call of duty is perfectly acceptable. In some cases the loss figures show that a tank is heavily used yet rarely destroyed, in other cases it shows that a tank is easily destroyed. Either way, it's part of the vehicle's service history and therefore is OK so long as nobody tries to include 5000 words on the loss of a single tank - perfectblue 20:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

4 tanks were destroyed in gaze. 2 mark 2, 1 magach (improved m-60) and one mark 3. in all cases the tank drove over a 100 to 200 kilos of explosives and no tank can survive that. the m-60 lost all 4 members as the mark 2 and 3 lost only 1 each.

Combat history section?

This tank does have a combat history by now, I heard about it being in combat in Lebanon 2006. But I don't know anything of substance about it. Some experts might want to contribute. Or expand/update service history section in general. Dysmorodrepanis 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Several weere destroyed by Russian Metis-M ATGMs, NATO code AT-13 Saxhorn-2 killing some crew members

Citations would be nice. // 3R1C 14:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

When reading this section one would come to the conclusion that this tank is the target of Russian missiles and IEDs when it enters combat, some examples were hit and damaged to varying degree and consequently some of its crew were killed or injured. Is that really all there is to say about Merkava tanks when they have entered combat? As this section stands, it reads like an advertisement for Russian anti-tank weaponry but surely the tanks themselves inflicted damage on its opponents too? AadaamS (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure any of the tanks that are claimed to be destroyed during the 2023 conflict have actually been destroyed. They clearly have been damaged, but it looks like most of them can be returned to combat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:586:C703:D0A0:8482:5C8A:FAA1:C590 (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This was sourced from a blog and I could not find any supporting citations - I removed much of this - it is essentially impossible to find reputable data sources in the middle of any conflict - I am certain tanks have been lost - but just sticking claims in an encyclopedic article - in the middle of the event - is a poor practice and conflicts with numerous common sense writing practices. BeingObjective (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Archiving

Archived all debates more than a month without discussion. // 3R1C 14:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if archiving over a month is okay on any article. --Shuki 16:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering how little is added to this talk, I took some initiative and did what I thought was applicable. // 3R1C 14:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. If there is little traffic, then info should be left on the page for others to come and read, not archived as 'outdated discussion'. --Shuki 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see how that's a justification for not archiving it, especially since the topics I archived were issues that have since been resolved. // 3R1C 18:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is that a discussion page is not only for current issues, but also so that 'newer' visitors can see what issues have already been discussed. This reduces the change of repeat discussions. Talk pages should only be archived if they are extremely long. --Shuki 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

References

I forgot to update the edit summary, but I removed the "references" that were added because they appeared to be items relevant to the subject matter, but were not explicitly referencing instances of information. // 3R1C 14:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark II subsec

I removed the Mark IIx subsections and made them bulleted lists. There was no reason, in my eyes, to subsec one line of information. // 3R1C 15:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

New Image

I like the new image, thanks to the uploader. Can you provide us more information about the image? Where was it taken and what variation it is? Additionally, I removed the Hebrew captioning from it, this being the English Wiki. Other than that, it's a good upload. // 3R1C 17:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get one without fingers on the lens? JonCatalan 02:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like to go to Israel, cross the border, and take pictures of them, by all means, take another one. I spent a lot of time combing sites for GDFL/CC-licensed images, I foudn none that were suitable. This was the closest anyone could find, and is a lot better than the ones I found. // 3R1C 03:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Pointless

Though this tank was considered to be one of the safest in the world 50 Merkavas were damaged during the 34 day war in Lebanon, 44 percents of the tanks hit by missiles had their armor penetrated, 30 soldiers and officers from the corps were killed and more than 100 were injured, including two battalion commanders. Additionally 3 Merkavas were destroyed by Palestinians during the Al-Aqsa Intifada whereby 10 Israeli soldiers died.

Which this tank? Merkava Mk. 1/2/3/4? Was considered by who? What is the source of that? Flayer 09:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3297431,00.html All Merkavas were considered to be among the safest tanks in the world by the Israeli defense departement who was surprised to see so many Merkavas being destroyed in the battle fields. --Mustafa Mustamann 19:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

not true at all.. no tank is 100% safe.. so to think that no tank will get hit or destroy is ignorance,, the Merkavas are still considered to be among the safest tanks in the world.. becuse RELATIVELY to any other tank, they are very safe and well protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.123.250 (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Cold War?

Does this really count as a cold war tank. I know that it was produced "during" the cold war, but it wasn't produced as an anti-west/anti-soviet tank in the same way that European/America/Warsaw pact tanks were.

If this is a Cold war tank, then shouldn't every tank produced between Korea and the fall of the Berlin wall be counted as a cold war tank.

perfectblue 19:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the period categories are only based on the period of development of military equipment. Since it was developed a decade before the fall of the Soviet Union, and continues to be updated, it counts as both a Cold War and post-Cold War (Modern) tank.

That said, a major design role of this tank is to serve in a small Western high-tech professional armed force, facing Soviet-armed conscript armies using Soviet-style tactics. Although its Israeli designers have made some different design decisions than European tank designers, the Merkava epitomizes the Western Cold War military philosophy (which is arguably not as well suited for post-Cold War conflicts like the 2006 Lebanon War).

And indeed, I think most every tank designed from after the Second World War until 1989–91 should probably fall into the Cold War category. are there any exceptions? —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 20:19 Z

This tank was, in a large degree, designed as an anti-soviet tank weapon. The primary armament of the Arab states was, and still is, soviet tanks, therefore any Israeli tank had to be capable of defeating soviet armor. Rudy Breteler (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in historical list of features

The list of features for each Merkava model seems to me to be very inaccurate with often features listed in generations later then the one where it was actually implemented. Examples include "individual fire-proof canisters" listed as a Mark IV feature while is was done for the Mark III, "Upgraded ammunition storage containers to minimize ammunition cook-off" (listed as Mark III) and "dry turret" designation (listed as Mark IV) are both applicable to all Merkava models and "laser designators" (listed for Mark III) which I assume means "laser range finders" (the first is a laser device used to highlight targets for a 3rd party while the second is a laser device that aids in calculating firing solution for the tank's primary weapon systems) which were first used in the Ornit MPS fire control computer system for the Merkava Mark IIB and later was included in an upgrade to earlier Mark II and some Mark I units.

I would like to have the feature list fixed to read as follows (features that have temporal correctness are not listed)

• Mark I

 * Upgraded ammunition storage containers to minimize ammunition cook-off,
 *Turret is classified as "dry", meaning that no active rounds are stored above the turret line.

• Mark II

 *Gyroscopic turret position tracking for maintaining turret heading regardless of chassis heading
 *External two-way telephone for secure communications between the tank crew and dismounted infantry,
 *Addition of laser range finder for the fire control computer system.
 *NBC protection systems,

• Mark III (not "dor-dalet")

 * Upgraded and strengthened tracks (built by Caterpillar, designed in Israel),
 *Ammunition stored in individual fire-proof canisters which reduce the chance of tank rounds cooking-off in the case of a fire inside the tank. 

• Mark III Baz

 *fire-control system enables the Merkava to operate as an anti-helicopter platform and is capable of detecting and destroying armoured attack helicopters 

Another issue is the listing of one of the important feature of the Mark IV is the expansion of available munition types for the main gun, and then goes on to list only HEAT and APFSDS which were (of course) already available for the Mark III as they are the mainstay of any MBT system. One of the main criticism for the move to a 120mm main gun (at the time) was the limited range of munition types as compared to the range available for the standard "Sharir" 105mm main gun, and this section in the article appears to reference to that but provide no actual information.

To sum - I'd appreciate the comments of the editors on the above issues as I'd rather not make such an extensive edit out of the blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guss77 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Challenger 2 penetration

There is a claim that a challenger 2 was defeated in a front hull hit with an RPG-29 in this article. Mind providing some proof? As ive not seen anything about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.236.76 (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It is true that a Challenger 2's lower frontal hull armour was penetrated by an RPG-29 (it bounced off the road and the tank's driver lost three toes) but it is certainly not true that this is either traditionally the strongest point on a tank or the strongest point on a Challenger 2 - indeed quite the reverse, the RPG had to bounce to reach it and it is a particularly weak spot on the armour of the tank. I am going to remove the reference to the Challenger 2 as it is only tangentially relevant and entirely misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.105.196 (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Some facts regarding my last edit

Hezbollah fired a rang of antitank missiles and rockets. Namely, the Russian-made AT-3 Sagger, AT-4 Spigot, AT-5 Spandrel, AT-13 Saxhorn-2 'Metis-M', АТ-14 Spriggan 'Kornet'; Iranian-made Ra'ad (version of AT-3 Sagger), Towsan (version of AT-5 Spandrel), Toophan (version of BGM-71 TOW), Saeghe-2 (version of M47 Dragon); and European-made MILAN missiles. Overall, "more than a 1000" launches.

• Israel had in Lebanon some 370-400 tanks (Merkava 2, 3, and 4).
• 52 tanks were damaged.
• 45 were hit by 51 antitank missiles and rockets, 7 by improvised landmines.
• In 22 tanks among 45, its armor was penetrated by 24 missiles. In 3 among 22 it caused an explosion of the ammunition (total loss).
• 5 tanks among 52 were totally destroyed:
  1. Merkava 2 over landmine - 4 killed (July 12)
  2. Merkava 4 over landmine - 1 killed (July 24) - this tank was equipped with special underside armour
  3. Merkava 2 by ATGM - 4 killed (August 9)
  4. Merkava 3 by ATGM - 4 killed (August 12)
  5. Merkava 4 by ATGM - 4 killed (August 12)
• 30 crewmen killed:
  • 10 in 3 Merkava 2 tanks (4 2 4)
  • 9 in 4 Merkava 3 tanks (3 1 4 1)
  • 11 in 6 Merkava 4 tanks (1 1 1 3 1 4)

Source: http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/history/2nd-lebanon-war/acv-losses/index.html http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/2nd-lebanon-hezbollah-atw/index.html Flayer (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

references

Flayer asked for a reference to the statistics I brought, about the amount of crewmen hit per hit tank. the numbers came from the official israeli armor corps magazine, I don't remember what issue, during last year. Is anyone in possesion of back issues and can point to a specific reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.103.96 (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked for reference to the number of built Merkava mark 4 (220 or 400  ??), not about the amount of crewmen hit per hit tank. Flayer (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia

Imagine this: http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=13038905&PageNum=0 If Georgia had this IMO best tank in the world... Any thoughts on adding this info?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Georgia never had Merkava. The negotiations about Mk2 were canceled. Merkava never exported. Flayer (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No Israeli source never confirmed any talks about Mk4 to Georgia. Flayer (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Specs - Length

I see the specs on the right side, but is that length correct? It reads 24.93 feet without the gun but 29.66 feet without it? That means the gun adds a whole 4.73 feet (1.44 meters) worth of length to the tank, and I don't think that's right.Colonel Marksman (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is correct. Take a look: [2]. Flayer (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Cavity wall fuel storage

Para 3 currently:

Additionally, the space between the inner and outer hulls is filled with diesel—an economical storage method and a means of defeating HEAT rounds.

Sounds ingenious, but doesn't seem likely. I've also read elsewhere that machine-gun ammunition is stored in this space. Does anyone have any references to this feature and its supposed protective properties (that don't lead back round to this article)? Centrepull (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That is correct - fuel is stored at the bottom of the front hull (under the engine), at the right and left side of the hull (slightly aft of the turret's center) and with the newer models also at the back (where most tanks have the exhaust). The purpose is mostly for compactness of storage (the tanks are formed to be relatively long and flat and adhere to the lines of the hull), protection of the fuel from armor piercing rounds to prevent explosion and cooling of the crew compartment (the fuel is constantly pumped around from tank to tank providing heat transfer). I do not believe it is meant to defeat HEAT rounds - a HEAT round in the fuel tank is going to cause the fuel to ignite: diesel fuel is not very flammable, but it will ignite when exposed to a super hot HEAT liner. Obviously I can't show pictures and figures to support this (Merkava internals are still classified, obviously) but you can trust me on the sunscreen. Machine-gun ammo is stored mostly in the turret for direct feeding into the coaxial, on top of the turret for easy access to feed the commander's and loader's MAGs, and some spares under the turret. No ammo except main gun rounds is ever stored in the hull.--Guss77 (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary to what Guss77 says, diesel-tanks do add protection from penetration into the hull, and while the fuel can ignite it isn't much of a problem since such fires are external. Both the pansarbandvagn 302 and the stridsvagn 103 used that system, the latter have an external link to the tests proofing the concept. BP OMowe (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Feb 2003 attack

Photo shows a Magach/Patton. In fact this source specifically says it was a Patton.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

2013 Merkava disposal sales

A sourced statement that the IDF are selling off Merkavas and M60s (amongst others) has been removed repeatedly [3], with a variety of unhelpful attacks on other editors as "childlike".

Sources are:

• http://www.armyrecognition.com/july_2013_news_defence_security_industry_military/israeli_army_is_planning_to_sell_second-hands_merkava_main_battle_tanks_f-16_fighter_aircraft_160713.html
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23287787

The credibility of the armyrecognition site has been attacked, the BBC piece is broad and doesn't specifically cover the sales. So first of all, does anyone have any better sources?

Secondly, it is no lurid leap of the imagination to believe that if the IDF are having a yard sale (as the BBC makes clear) then early model Merkavas could be involved in this, as indeed the armyrecognition site claims. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The BBC article doesn't even use the word "Merkava", so its not a good source for a claim that they are being sold off. Wouldn't say its reporting pitched towards "yard sale" either. Perhaps the Israeli newspaper source mentioned in the armyrecognition.com article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The sources refer to something that *might* lead to some tanks being sold. Until some actually are sold then it shouldn't be included per WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:RECENTISM, which all apply. Snarky comments are utterly unhelpful, WP:CIVIL is not optional. (Hohum ^@) 13:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Whether the tanks are eventually sold or not is interesting, but not the key factor here. What's important is that Israel is offering them for sale as working tanks, not merely as scrap. That has significant political implications - presumably they're not being offered to just anyone who might wish them!.

I see no reason, per WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTNEWS or WP:RECENTISM, to remove this from the Merkava article, or even the (older, thus perhaps less significant) M60 article. If you can make a serious argument that the IDF selling tanks to a fairly open international market isn't a politically significant move in global arms trading, then I'm listening – but parroting those same irrelevant policies over and over is not constructive, merely edit warring. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that merk sales would be politically significant, but then the existing contract for new merk 4s and Namer to Columbia is even more so, and that has been a reality for months according to our own article. So I cannot see the significance of this point. More sophisticated systems than the merk series are available for sale in the international market by Israel. Iron dome and Arrow (Israeli missile) are for sale.

• I have concerns as to the breadth of weapons types mentioned in the source, which impacts on its credibility -the individual article that is, it appears a RS on the whole- as it claims that not only merk 1s, but also F16s (I assume A and B models is referred to here) and naval vessels are being sold off. The F16 and naval vessel sales are deeply problematic. I doubt that early model F16s are on the market for political and tech transfer reasons, quite apart from the fact that the IDF/AF is actually facing a cut in its active aircraft numbers which is not welcomed by Gantz and the high command. As recently as last year there were reports that the IDF may have to lease extra F15/F16s to cover a loss of ground attack capability by attrition of ageing airframes, with a period of several years at least before the 3 F-35I squadrons come on-line. There were reports discussing it in the Jerusalem Post. Will dig out if required. Losing airworthy F16A/Bs seems improbable, in terms of what may be brewing in the Leb. Even using UCAVs on masse would not be a substitute for the several existing F16 A/B squadrons in terms of flexibilty and weapons carriage.
• As for naval vessels, well. Again, considering the new gasfields to be defended, the navy is stretched as it is. I believe the IDF is indeed selling off equipment. The M60 Magrach (itself a formidable tank with the upgrades), and the Kfir and maybe F4 Kurnas upgrade. They have over 1000 M48/M60 Mgrach in storage and perhaps 200 of the various aircraft types. The M60 and I believe some of the air assets are part of paper formations in deep reserve. It is these to be scrapped. This accounts for the reported personell loss. Until we get a hard news source mentioning the Merk specifically, I think we should hold off.
• I would be amenable to a very cautious form of words indicating these rumours (because that is their status at the moment) in the article, if it was reached via consensus.
• If the surplus armour is going anywhere, it will be to Columbia, Ecuador and perhaps Nigeria. Thailand is a possibility. The M60 Magrach is armed with the 120mm gun and has all the goodies. It could still handle a high-intensity battlefield. Cheers Irondome (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

An apology for talking crap above

• About the sale of warships http://famagusta-gazette.com/cyprus-to-buy-israeli-warships-reports-local-daily-p19996-69.htm
• And the sale of F-16s http://www.jpost.com/defense/israeli-defense-exports-hit-record-high-320850

Post it note to self. Wait 72 hours and scan the media! Andy, Cheers! Irondome (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

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

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This is all set. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

1,000 Mk 3 when only 780 were made?

Sounds like lazy second-rate journalism. The MK3 are to be retained in any case. The report is probably referring to the earliest types, and could even be conflating extra IMI upgraded M60s. The figures are irreconcilable. I do not ed war, I got a life, but I would suggest a change in wording to reflect this irreconcilable diffence in sources. The 780 source is the stronger. Irondome (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Well thats what the upi.com says. Maybe IMI was going to produce more ? Or convert some Mk 2's to 3. I dunno. We can look for additional sources.

[4], [5] and [6] confirms the possible sale. But no mention of numbers.

There you go. Found another source seys 1,000 Mk3's [7]. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 08:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Nice response mate. I dunno... it just doesnt sound right in terms of the balance of forces projected then and now. Most if not all of the Merk 3 esp the BAZ were upgraded almost up to MK4 standard. This would be the core world-class MBT striking strength of the IDF, about 780 3's and the 600 Mk4 building. About 5 divisions. I think it was the the deal to send all those seriously souped up M60s with all the goodies, inc state of the art sensors and fire control computers, merk type modular armour and the 120mm gun. There were over a thousand of those. It could have been mixed with some MK2s as a total package. That M60 upgrade can still slug it out with any MBT in service anywhere. It could carry trophy too. I cant see the IDF unloading the MK3s to anyone. Lets try and find an Israeli source to at least start somewhere. There are no Israeli media sources talking about a MK3 sale on that scale in Israeli media that Ive seen yet. Its a mystery. Cheers Irondome (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://english.sina.com/world/2014/0608/707464.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

inconsistency in the combat history section

in "2006 Lebanon War" it states that "Hezbollah weaponry was believed to include ... AT-14 'Kornet'[31] HEAT missiles"; but in "Gaza Border areas" section it states that "It had hitherto not been suspected that Hamas possessed such an advanced missile" (referring to the same, AT-14 Kornet. Can this be correct? - Redshield3 (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Why not? Hezbullah in Lebanon got some Kornets directly from Assad, but for Hamas in Gaza it is not that easy. Flayer (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Merkava. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403024612/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Victims+of+Palestinian+Violence+and+Terrorism+sinc.htm to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Victims+of+Palestinian+Violence+and+Terrorism+sinc.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Merkava. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151124130349/http://www.inss.org.il/uploadImages/systemFiles/Israel322533025.pdf to http://www.inss.org.il/uploadImages/systemFiles/Israel322533025.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429194744/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188392502053&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1188392502053&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202200940/http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/01/16/israel-lightens-up-will-replace-heavy-tanks-with-versatile-light-armored-vehicles/ to http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/01/16/israel-lightens-up-will-replace-heavy-tanks-with-versatile-light-armored-vehicles/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Merkava. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527094825/http://www.waronline.org/en/IDF/arms/merkava.htm to http://www.waronline.org/en/IDF/arms/merkava.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100525233936/http://www.eurosatory.mod.gov.il/merkava.htm to http://www.eurosatory.mod.gov.il/merkava.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111222428/http://www.israeldefense.com/?CategoryID=483&ArticleID=1260 to http://www.israeldefense.com/?CategoryID=483&ArticleID=1260
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016045917/http://israeldefense.com/?CategoryID=411&ArticleID=549 to http://www.israeldefense.com/?CategoryID=411&ArticleID=549

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Star Wars Star Destroyer

In an interview with George Lucas In Starlog Magazine he said the shape of the Star Destroyer was inspired by this tank, particularly the extreme sloped armor. 98.164.64.98 (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction

"Secondary armament [...] 2 × 7.62 mm (0.300 in) MG"

"Each model of the Merkava has two roof mounted 7.62 mm machine guns for use by the commander and loader and another mounted co-2axially with the main gun."

91.10.25.103 (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Merkavah Tank of Tzur Maor and his Crew.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Merkava 5 released

This article will need a major overhaul now that the Merkava 5 was released after completing field tests and is now in service. The lede, infobox, specifications, etc. all are now out of date. Earlier articles of value include [8] mentions 'Carmel' spec, [9] mentions AI which was discussed earlier with video at [10], [11] discusses late changes based on what's happening in Ukraine. Worth looking on YouTube, also, as several articles reference or embed YT videos. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 02:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

A while ago I was messing around on what I believe to be the official IDF website.

I stumbled upon an article referring to the new Merkava variant with the name "Merkava Mk4 Barak" [12], this makes me question the validity of the information in the source you provided. SimpleWikiUser12 (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

→ An Israeli article talks about the Merkava "Mark 4 of the fifth generation" [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.79.52 (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

How good is this tank???

Worth at least some thought - BeingObjective (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Using poor quality citations - the article is about the Merkava Tank and nothing more.

This article seems especially prone to the use of unreliable or poor sources - see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability.

Numerous edits are also agenda edits - Wikipedia:Advocacy -- I suspect real time data on any current conflict - on any subject has this problem.

This is an article about the Merkava Tanks - not an update on a particular conflict.

I think if you have current data with a solid reliable source - bring it into talk prior to sneaking it into this article - there are numerous examples.

Adding these from an unregistered dynamic MAC/IP - also does not help - I think registering for an account then making a change - helps in the area of credibility. BeingObjective (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Destruction of merkava tanks in Gaza and the tactics and equipment Hamas is using to destroy them.

Video footage from Hamas shows Al-Qassam fighters hiding in buildings and firing at tanks and quickly going out into the street, destroying a tank, and retreating. It seems like Hamas has found many ways to destroy or damage these vehicles, and on a budget. Mauzer's random BS (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

They don't show a single destroyed tank. One reason they retreat immediately and don't risk trying to record the aftermath —aside from them being satisfied with people believing them— is that they know they'll be immediately engaged,possibly even by the tank they just hit or engaged.

There is footage of some Merkavas losing roadwheels or getting their fuel tanks ignited, neither of which means more than mobility kills at best. And these may be the result of IEDs, which, if big enough, can disable or destroy any tank so there's nothing special about that. EpistemicKarma (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Ration heater

This text has a link to the wiki article ration heater, which is about the chemical packs used to heat MREs, not about any device that is equipment within the tank. It is likely we has a terminology problem here: 'ration heater' is being used as a synonym for an electric heater or for the boilers found in British and Indian tanks. Can anyone verify this?

I'd like to remove the wlink but it is likely it will just be restored if the text is not modified. I think we should modify the text from 'ration heater' to 'electric ration heater' or to 'ration heater / boiler' once we have verification.

Thanks Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The following source (taken from GDW's Twilight 2000 roleplaying game) gives some information on the ration/water heater.

"The gunner, commander, and the loader are in the turret. The commander has a manually-rotating cupola with all-around vision blocks; one has a night vision channel. The turret loader mans a medium machinegun when he is not busy in the turret, but he has no cupola and only one wide-angle vision block forward. The crew is protected by an NBC Overpressure system with a collective NBC backup; air conditioning and heating is also provided, along with a water/ration heater capable warming up to four MRE-type packets at once.

Twilight 2000 Notes: These vehicles were just entering production at the outset of the Twilight War, and are rather rare."

http://www.pmulcahy.com/self-propelled_artillery/israeli_sp_artillery.htm

I've seen similar in older British tanks, and as the IDF were heavy users of (and liked) the Centurion family I suspect they got the idea from them, basically using heat from the Continental engine to boil water/heat rations. 137.244.82.100 (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2024 - Combat history

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

−

Merkava MK.3s, & MK.4s were used in the [[Israel–Hamas war|2023 Israel–Hamas war]]. 15 were either destroyed or damaged in the first week of war (of which destroyed: 4, captured: 10, damaged: 1). All captured vehicles photographed with Hamas militants on them were not accessed nor moved by the militants, and it is most likely that Hamas will burn the destroyed Merkavas instead. Some destroyed vehicles were clearly fitted with Trophy APS. Hezbollah fired more than 20 ATGMs against Merkava tanks destroying or damaging more than 10.

Merkava MK.3s, & MK.4s were used in the [[Israel–Hamas war|2023 Israel–Hamas war]].1 was damaged and another 1 captured in the [[2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel|first week of war]]. The captured vehicle were not accessed nor moved by the militants.

• Why it should be changed:

2 reasons:
1. None of the cited references support the numbers given for destroyed or captured vehicles. The source states that 1 tank was damaged and 1 was captured.
2. The final sentence, "Hezbollah fired ... more than 10", is not supported by the provided references.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

The current sources: 69, 70. Only source 70 contains relevant information to this paragraph.

Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they meant to cite the popular mechanics piece. I updated it. Rainsage (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Guy Haddad 1 (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

References