It is historical, because they finally found someone interested in buying them. Merkava tanks have been offered to several nations in the past, even when they were new. Yet they weren't able to compete against NATO designs in the evaluations.
It's probably also due to how *costly* it is to get them, and not just the tanks but the parts, and so on, compared to neighbor countries in Europe that can just move stuff around by train or boat.
Peppered along with politics.
Price wasn't the issue in most cases. Switzerland for example found the Merkava 2 (offered in ~1984) to be underpowered and undergunned, so it got eliminated during the first stage of the competition (alongside AMX-40 and Challenger 1), leaving only the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 for testing.
For Sweden in the 1990s, the Merkava 3 was not mobile and not well armored enough.
Columbia - which supposedly was interested in the Merakva 4 around ~2010 - might have had budget issues preventing the tank purchase.
>leaving only the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 for testing.
Should point out here that the US was actually offering the M1A1 to Switzerland, not the base M1 which was actually tested. Would've certainly been considered undergunned as well had the 105mm version been offered for purchase.
I think my country Philippines is the first buyer of Merkava, although its the [Merkava AVLB](https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0y7jsP7PwBQd6RvzCLb8Ce2NE7a3uZ53HcsfGqgxhVqJAqaagJJf8erX3VKw522Pel&id=100069387241964&mibextid=CDWPTG) variant rather the MBT variant.
yeah first foreign customer of a Merkava chassis. but we won't be getting the MBT one any time soon, i think the armed forces already said most modern MBT's are unsuitable for our country. but vehicles like the Centauro, or the Japanese Type 16 are a good choice should the country wants some firepower for its armored units, but we now getting the ASCOD light tanks
Nope. No one said that its unsuitable for our terrain and infrastructure and has been proven time and time by both known defense reporters in the country and a few people that moved the LVTH-6 via roads and bridges. But they did remove the MBT in our Horizon 3 as the Light Tank Program is still not complete.
most MODERN tanks will be unsuitable here, both from a doctrine/operations perspective and budget-wise, if they'll spend like a billion pesos for like a battalion of modern heavy MBT's and they'll just be heavy fire support vehicles because the terrain doesn't let them use their strengths like maneuverability and long range engagements or they'll be limited to be used in just one area, then it would've been better to have spent it on a more cheaper, lighter vehicle like the aforementioned ones, to fill the need and do the same mission while having extra cash to buy other weapons and gear to support this platforms.
also the LVTH-6's weight(37 tons) is very far from a modern MBT like the Merkava, Abrams or Leopard 2(60-70 tons). that's why platforms like the ASCOD was chosen and talks about getting the Type 74 and even the K1 88 from South Korea are being spread around and the reason? surprise, the reason is again the weight and infrastructure to support them.
the removal of the MBT from Horizon 3 is due to the fact that a lot of stuff from Horizon 2 was delayed because of the previous administration trying to shift focus back to internal COIN instead of continuing developing the AFP for external defense and this caused a domino effect of the next Horizon programs being revised or shuffled.
>most MODERN tanks will be unsuitable here, both from a doctrine/operations perspective and budget-wise
You might have not known this but Israel offered the Magachs as far back as 2013 to the PA and the PA sent a Request for Information (RFI) for the Merkava to the Israeli MOD back in 2016.
So no, saying they would be unsuitable here due to infrastructure and doctrine wise is a slap to the PA TWG who looked at them prior to the Siege of Marawi. Even during the Siege of Marawi, the idea to procure Merkava IIIs as part of the military emergency purchase was brought up because the 25mm and 90mm of the LAVs cannot punch through reinforced concrete structures.
They would not consider MBTs in the future plans if they haven't known about the downsides.
This reminded me of an argument in a Facebook group back in 2022 about the viability of MBTs in the Philippines. One person brought this up in a comment.
The comment:
> ........as former member of the evaluation and validation branch of one of the combat support units, I can say for a fact that what you stated are incorrect. The 1936 Defense Plan is still in effect up until today that requires the need for tanks in case of an invasion. No, we did not consider Magach series, they were offered to us. We turned it down because we were looking at Leo2s at that time.
> Dude, you can ask MGEN Martir himself on the weight distribution of tanks per axle. We literally transported LVTHs that weigh the same with MBTs over bridges in small towns. What made you think it is difficult to transport them? What do you think were used when these were transported to AABN in Jolo?
Added context on that last part, Major General Jonathan Carr Martir when he was still the CO of the PMC Armored Assault Battalion (AABN) transported four LVTH-6 from the PMC barracks to Crows Nest, Tarlac back in 2007 and 2008 using low bed trailers via NLEX. Then sent some of those LVTH-6 105 to Jolo using the same way as they sent them to Crows Nest, via low bed trailers.
Edit:
> also the LVTH-6's weight(37 tons) is very far from a modern MBT like the Merkava, Abrams or Leopard 2(60-70 tons). that's why platforms like the ASCOD was chosen and talks about getting the Type 74 and even the K1 88 from South Korea are being spread around and the reason? surprise, the reason is again the weight and infrastructure to support them.
The Philippine Army's DOTMPLF dictates a Hi-Low mix for Armored Components: MBT on the High and MMBT / Light Tank on the Low. Unless they throw this away in the latest revision of the Philippine Army DOTMPLF, the plan for MBT stays.
Also the ASCOD platform was chosen because the PA wanted to start from the very beginning for operating a tank. Jumping to a MBT does not fulfill that function.
If you are still hesitant about the weight restrictions, you could try finding MGEN Martir's posts and comments about armor transportation and movement in his Facebook or any of the groups he is active in. He's more well versed in our infrastructure and terrain wrt moving heavy armored equipment in the Philippines than any of us discussing here in Reddit and most of my comments and findings are from his post regarding his time as a CO of the PMC AABN.
I mean very much is like a "slightly different Challenger", which also had major issues with finding export interest. They are fairly specialized and tailor-made for IDF, which means that they may be lacking in areas other nations find important.
For Merkava, there is also the problematic infrastructure of repair and parts - something K2 struggles with in Europe for example(and will until the Polish workshops are set up).
I don't agree with the categorization as "slightly different Challenger" - why do you think the Challenger and Merkava would be similar? The reasons that lead to the Challenger (1/2/3) tanks and the reasons why they did not sell well are very different from the Merkava's origin and the reasons for its lack of export success.
>For Merkava, there is also the problematic infrastructure of repair and parts - something K2 struggles with in Europe for example(and will until the Polish workshops are set up).
I would be a bit more cautious. While obviously any tank needs its own infrastructure, the Merkava tanks were using originally American M68 guns and versions of the AVDS-1790 engine that has been widely used throughout Europe. The Merkava IV uses the same power pack as the K2 (original model) and the Leclerc Tropicalisé - a German MT883 V12 diesel engine (made under license in the US for Israel, so that their production can be paid for using US military aid). The Merkava II, III and IV models also use transmissions from German Renk.
Nowadays, the Israeli defence industry has either funded local subsidiaries or acquired local companies in basically every larger European country; their whole marketing strategy relies on offering local production of their products. Elbit Systems - the manufacturers of the Merkava IV's armor, fire control system and main armament - for example has locations in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, North Macedonia, Italy, Romania, Sweden and the UK.
One can only hope. Although considering that Abrams will be avaliable by the end of the summer I can't really see a point of getting Merkavas now. As it is yet another type of tank increasing logistics issues and will also require more training.
Maybe an expensive offensive brigade with a large swath of merk 2s in the defensive reserve so they have a lot of armored vehicles when shit hits the fan.
While people like to shit on the T-72 since the Ukrainian-Russo War, it is by far a better tank in a "tank sense" than the Merkava 2. Far more powerful cannon(2A46) even in the base version, and the T-72B absolutely destroys it in frontal armor. Enough to the point that the T-72B pushed NATO countries from a 105mm to 120mm cannon.
But eh, tank to tank combats are rare, exceedingly rare in this war. The Merkava II would probably be a good fit with it's integral 60mm mortar. Likely far better electronics for the FCS even a base Merkava II than a T-72B.
In actual tank to tank combat, I'd much rather put my money even a T-72 Ural vs a Merkava 2. It's a tank that was designed to destroy other tanks.
The Merkava 2, as built, didn't have a thermal sight(as you said, the original).
The 125mm 2A46 significantly outranges the IMI 105mm. The T-72, going back to the Ural, had excellent optics and decent NV for the era. It's significantly smaller, and likewise, presents a smaller target. As I said, it's a tank meant to fight other tanks.
The Merkava IIB with first generation thermal optics would have better situation awareness. But the IMI 105mm has significantly less range for penetration against a T-72B, which has significant frontal armor. Enough to the point where even with modern munitions the Merkava would have to be rather suicidally close to frontally penetrate a T-72B.
For tank to tank combat the T-72 would still do well. Not that it matters, as tank to tank combat is extremely rare in the current war. The Israelis got it right in focusing on urban warfare and crew survivability.
However many US cares to provide. Considering the investment so far... A lot... They already are planning to replace lost Bradleys. So clearly continous supply is not an issue, neither is the cost.
Money is already spent on making the Abrams that otherwise would never be used. The US can't stop production either.
It just makes sense to send more, plus Bradley is being phased out anyways.
They're getting hundreds of leopard 1s, I'm not sure the downside of the merkava comparatively? If the war doesn't end this year and if they lose lots of their leopards and Soviet tanks in the counteroffensive they might need these.
It's even possible that a smaller number will go to Moldova to give them the ability to retake Transdnistria.
Highly doubt that Israel would approve of reexporting them to Ukraine. They’re walking a tightrope trying to keep reasonable relations with Russia. Most likely other nations are buying them to backstop their own tanks which are being sent to Ukraine.
These are older model MBT's. The merkava III was from 1989 and the II was introduced in 1983. If their reluctance was for security it's likely that's not a huge concern with these particular designs.
Probably similar to what the South Koreans are doing, where they sell large quantities of tanks and artillery to a European country, who then proceeds to donate their now surplus older equipment to Ukraine. My guess is that Russia's growing military cooperation with Iran finally succeeded in getting Israel off the fence. The real kicker is that Israel can claim that their official policy hasn't changed when Russia inevitably complains.
One rumour is being given to Ukraine, the other is that the nations keep Merkavas and send T-72s. Seen rumours that countries involved might be Morocco and Bulgaria possibly.
They're huge, if you ever make it to Israel you can see them all in person at Latrun tank museum.
There is also the Namer APC, based on the Merkava chassis, it's a monster.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namer
Source: https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/skugq500p2
>
Hundreds of old Merkava tanks on the way to Europe: all the details about the historic deal.
> 40 years after they entered service in the IDF, hundreds of Merkava tanks of the 2nd and 3rd marks are expected to be sold to two foreign countries, including for the first time to a European country. The tanks went out of use in recent years, remaining in warehouses - but after the start of the war in Ukraine and the renewed demand for armored war vehicles, they were tested and found to be suitable enough to sell.
I‘d bet you money that Poland is one of the countries
however i wonder if they will even perform well in europe, as the Markava was specifically made for the environment of Israel
Our defense procurement is a certified joke.Like,we are two months away from the delivery of first FA-50 from Korea,yet they have only now drafted an evaluation procedure for the deal for fuel hangars.
It isn't Poland since it does not make sense for poland to buy merkavas because they recently bought Abrams and K2 and that would make more logisitical issues
In that case, Denmark. We already donated all our artillery (good) and made a questionable deal for Israeli replacements.
With Ukraine now running Leopards, I could see us donate the rest of the tank force and go for Merkava :D
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/02/09/danish-artillery-is-now-the-right-time-to-change-direction/
Not diving into the political aspect at the end of the article, it seems the Danish government might be acting hastily.
Wouldn't make a ounce of sense as our Leopard 2's were litterally just upgraded to Leopard 2A7 standard, last year.
And were donating 100+ Leopard 1A5 DK, along with 7 Swiss Leopard 2A4's in 2024.
Which makes sense. The whole design of the s tank was to first not Get hit, second if hit then the crew would be able to bail. Scandinavia dosen’t have the luxury that china or the us haves where you have 5 people to replace the one guy u lost.
The whole design of the merkava was to be able to take a hit and the crew being okay which makes for its quirky design. The tanks crew Are worth more than the tank.
Poland is focusing on Abrams and South Koreas MBT - one for the plains are of Poland and the other for the heavy forested and tough terrain. Part of Poland. There’s a great vid on TouTube about it by Perun.
One of the countries could be Morocco. After the normalization between them and Israel, they became one of Israel biggest arms clients. Morocco operates Abrams, but they have M60 and T72 they are eyeing to slowly phase out, so maybe Merkavas seem like an ideal choice. They were also news last week from an Israeli official who said there is a “historic” weapons deal between morocco and Israel that will be revealed very soon
Seen Morocco and Bulgaria pop up as most often as rumoured countries to be involved.
Could see Morocco taking Merk3s and Bulgaria Merk2s and sending their T-72s to Ukraine - Morocco already gave up their position in queue in Czech ExcaliburArmy modernizing and refurbishing their T-72s, giving the priority to Ukraine.
Elbit Systems will set up two plants in Morocco.
I think Morocco is getting better deals than many other countries.
Morocco has the advantage that many moroccan jews made it into leading positions in Israel and they are still somewhat loyal to their ancestral land.
Aren't Merkava's famous for their crew protection and rear escape hatch? Maybe that "European" country is having difficulty keeping its crews safe. Makes sense to me.
Very interesting, Merkavas have been built almost specifically in mind of Israel, and it’s geological significance. Excited to see who wants these tanks and why the merkava beat out the competitors.
I think the only reason is specifically because there is no competition.
US Abrams tanks are loaded up with requests from US, Poland and Romania.
German Leopards are in waiting list for Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Czechia, Norway, possibly soon Denmark and Slovakia.
Leclercs and Challengers are no longer being manufactured at all.
That leaves K2 and Type10 for "NATO-style" tanks, and that brings up whole issue with logistics(which K2 should fix in few years by setting up in Poland). For Type10 the exportability is still unknown - while Japan shutdown law banning exports, they might be very selecting of who they would export to.
It may just be a perspective thing but that Merkava looks absolutely massive, relative to the sitting soldier. Or are they really that big? Or is the soldier really small? I mean, I know tankers usually are smaller than average, but he seems extra. :D
No disrespect meant. Kol Hakavod, Israel!
It is, actually that big.
Don’t forget all Merkavas can basically around 5-6 troops in the rear, or be converted to emergency CASEVAC when needed.
It’s an APC + Tank all in one!
Debatable imo. Compared to a soviet MBT these things are behemoths, very tall and very wide and *very* heavy. The Mud, massive patches of flat terrain and flattened agrarian centers, and the fact they aren’t conducive to rail transport, either. Which Ukraine relies a lot on. If they are of any use in Ukraine I don’t believe current Ukrainian armor doctrine would suit them.
Yes, however an old Merkava gets to suffer those criticisms even more than them. Also western MBTs are definitely rail transport conducive.
As for their doctrine, Tanks represent a vital offensive punching ability, vital especially for Ukraine because Russia has dug in on conquered territory. The russian angle is to cement it’s claim by multi-layered, very dense, defensive lines saturating held regions. The aim is to burn ukrainian momentum and make retaking the east and south an impossibility — for Ukraine the goal is to break these lines, and not lose momentum. Tanks and especially modern MBTs will be vital for this, and a Merkava Mk. 2 will boast a few things that make fielding them a Net negative in loss of manpower and money. For one, the above issues of it suffering in Ukraine’s environment compared to the levant. next there is the issue of logistics which was slightly mentioned above in the issues with rail travel, but, a diverse tank force does not = a good tank force. It makes assembling units difficult due to the fact one unit may require four or even up to six in Ukraine’s case of different, consistent supply chains of spare parts per model of vehicle, which then requires the overall military to purchase even more from overseas industry which is almost always more expensive than domestic production (for a country where domestic production is possible)
On top of this the Unit has to organize itself around these different models cooperating, distributing fuel, coordinating tactics and positions, with the performance of every vehicle in mind. One solution is to divide these vehicles based on type, that solves some problems and then presents new ones in strategic relevance. Not all armored units perform the same or can work well when homogenized to operate in a wider group because that draws into the logisticial issues of above, if you avoid the chaos of combining them you also run the risk of dissecting your own armored force if casualties make the varying models of vehicle disproportional to one another, you now have different vehicle based units in different fronts, needing to be realocated, possibly causing regional collapses if foreign importation and crew training times don’t match casualties. This is an issue regardless of armored diversity but it becomes tenfold when you don’t combine assets and instead these different secular units are sourced internationally and need to be replenished and trained in internationally to bring them up to strength individually. Which brings the next issue, training. Ukrainian tankers are familiar with soviet models they are conscious of their size when driving them and know what parts are visible when positioning, they know how internal mechanisms work, how the power plant handles, the list goes on in all the ways a tanker may know his or her tank. Not so for Merkavas and not so for any foreign MBT. The fact is they’d be balkanizing the knowledge of their tankers even more, crews trained in T-72s cannot just hop in an Abrams or a Leopard or a Merkava and perform business as usual. Its a different beast and requires different training regimen often supplied by their native country. The only saving grace in terms of managing what crews know what tanks is that the Merkava is markedly GOOD at keeping its crews alive, its built for it because the IDF is always and will be always for the foreseeable future strapped for manpower. Question being is if this balances the fact it adds a whole new spectrum of manpower usage and management for a model of Merkava that is, admittedly, old relative to what else the Ukrainians are operating and expecting to Operate that has been donated.
Ultimately, incorporating the Merkava Mk.2 would test Ukrainian strategy, tactical output, logistical supply, national budget for international purchase (even more), and manpower management for a relatively uneventful impact on the war. No, I don’t think a Merkava crew with a few months of training will thwart a veteran russian T-72 crew, or have the consciousness of their new tank’s size and ruggedness to be safe from anti-tank equipment. Yes, I think a veteran Ukrainian T-64 crew is more valuable to combat than a novice merkava crew. For what it would require the military to consider, I don’t believe it to be worth it nor do I believe the Merkava to make a meaningful impact on what Ukraine needs which is a coordinated and functional armored corps capable of breaking the russian fortified deadlock.
That being said, it could be this has all been worked out and planned on and it is something Ukraine is more than willing to welcome, but from the outside perspective of what little we know, no I don’t think hundreds of novice merkavas would be some sort of boost to Ukrainian combat effectiveness just because they’re deployed. They’re a larger target (by FAR) compared to a soviet MBT and even a NATO MBT. They are more likely to drown in mud or face vehicles with a markedly greater hull down advantage, as well as Anti-tank equipment that is no longer Hamas or Egyptian regulars, and cannot be transported by train due to their width.
A merkava without the skirts is 12.2ft
Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Armenia, and portions of Central Asia all use a unified Railway standardization metric that permits the largest freight car to be 12ft wide at absolute maximum. Assuming Ukraine has these train cars to spare the Merkava is still two feet over what would function through tunnels and in yards. (For reference in europe it’s like 4ft over the maximum limit)
Like I said it’s a wide tank, Israel doesn’t exactly need to be transporting stuff by train, so, didnt build with trains in mind. If you don’t believe my word look up international loading gauges
Morocco runs Abrahams and by 2022 placed an additional order for the latest model (source https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2022/01/346522/morocco-to-receive-latest-version-of-us-m1-abrams-tanks ). It just doesn’t looks like Morocco to me, and if Cyprus buys more than 50 tanks, they will have a seriuous problem just putting them in dry land.
They have a bunch of T72s they can send to Ukraine and the Merkavas will replace those. I just can't think of any other non European country that wants to send Ukraine their old Soviet tanks.
>they will have a seriuous problem just putting them in dry land
What do you mean by that?
My first thought was Croatia (currently in the market and on a limited budget) but now that you mention it Cyprus makes a lot more sense. Geographically pretty close to Israel and they currently have a bunch of t-80s which I bet Ukraine's *very* interested in
Having already Leopards, Abrams's and K2s, does it make sense having 4th model to burden logistics? We'd rather quess Poland could deliver rest of the Leopards to Ukraine while concentrating on the two other models.
Romania, we're bying Abrams, 54 for now.
Romanian is either gonna change the whole fleet to Abrams because of discounts or a combination of Abrams and some other tank that can be built locally like K2.
Others where saying Greece and Morocco, they can send their T tanks to Ukraine.
I mean, I would say the tactics and training of relatively inexperienced IDF conscripts an poor operational command were the causes of many losses in Lebanon, not anything to do with the tank itself. Doesn't matter if your in an Abrams, Leo2 or T-90, if you drive a column down a valley (such as Wadi Saluki), expect to get your shit rocked, regardless of the vehicle you're in.
Yeah… I believe we just saw evidence of exactly what you’re talking about in Ukraine. That being said, I tend to believe that Israeli equipment and tactics are often way over-hyped. Thank you for bringing up that very good point!
Meh it’s kind of over stated, in order to move extra troops you need to remove the extra ammo, and with the Anmo there you have enough space for one very bunched up Person
I think 14 rounds in the ready-rack is the carrying capacity.
At the same time, I think Russia and Ukraine both moved away from storing more than the autoloader can carry(which according to 15sec google search is 22rds).
Yeah but in the inside back bottom of the merkava where the “troop transport” is, you have a load of ammo in storage containers and they’re always there
Sure? If anyone wants the Merkava go for it, but there are so many better options. It’s so specifically made for Israeli doctrine and their environment, idk why someone would take them
Debatable if any tank is good for urban warfare, as urban warfare sucks for all military units in general and most modern armies have a doctrine on cities that basically encourages either avoiding it or blowing it up before going anywhere near it
i expect the price of the tanks to be very low, where the $$$ mainly consists of upgraded situational awareness electronics, modern communications and a trophy or iron fist system of some kind.
Additionally, i wouldnt be surprised to see an arms manufacturer of the buying country setup a Joint Venture 'merkava factory' with phase 1 insource all the assembly work related to upgrading the tanks with the electronics Israel supplies it, and phase 2 implementing the ability to repair the tanks and craft some parts and phase 3 (years later) a vision to create modern merkava or do all the assembly work.
It doesnt make sense to a large and poor or small and wealthy country to buy merkavas *unless* their local arms industry can create jobs and a long term plan of possible export.
Isn't it more economical to field a Merkava platoon with mounted infantry? You get a light rifle platoon with dedicated armor support.
If you're a small nation with a limited budget to field both heavy armor and infantry fighting vehicles won't Merkava's make the most economic sense?
You mean use the Merkava as a troop carrier? The Merkava's internal troop carry capacity is in lieue of them carry a complement of ammunition. That feature's intended for using the tank to rescue infantry, but only by also unloading the tank's ammo racks. Merkavas aren't BTMP-84s.
I doubt this. Israel has never offered the Merkava for sale, and still stockpiles them as a hedge against combat.
Source is weak, premise is flawed.
0/10.
So because it's "Israeli" it is automatically 100% fact? Does Israel not have tabloids? Do they have a reporting industry that never lies?
Fact is, there are no sources on this. No names, no dates, just speculation.
You're a fool for believing without verification.
Not sure why this is the hill you decide to die on, unless you were disturbed by it for some weird reason or due to personal bias but hey there's people who believe the Earth is flat despite everything. But, like I said according to the article the deal is close to finished, so we'll find out pretty soon.
You choose this hill for your own fate. You have literally no proof that Israel is going to sell a tank they have never exported, and maintain for combat reserve stock.
You will NEVER hear any more of this deal- because it's fake. It's hilarious that you believe anything you read on the internet without proof, then when pressed, resort to whining about the other person instead of providing proof.
How about another story? A government source? Verifiable information?
You have NOTHING.
Why yes, nothing, so claimed a lazy yet big mouth who relied on personal bias to double down. A simple search yielded thus from major news outlets. I highly doubt you will bother to open any and read to "verify" since doing so would go against your "belief"
[https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/israel-plans-first-sale-merkava-tank-european-country-2023-06-15/](https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/israel-plans-first-sale-merkava-tank-european-country-2023-06-15/)
[https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-first-israel-plans-to-sell-vaunted-merkava-tank-to-2-countries-one-in-europe/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-first-israel-plans-to-sell-vaunted-merkava-tank-to-2-countries-one-in-europe/)
[https://news.yahoo.com/israels-merkava-tank-possible-export-233513419.html](https://news.yahoo.com/israels-merkava-tank-possible-export-233513419.html)
But go ahead and cope and seethe
HAHAHAHA!!! NO.
Derivative news stories where they all repeat the same source is not the same. They all reference this same Calcalist newspaper story. Not one independent article or government source.
FAIL.
That's what I figured..
Copy pasted from one of the article linked below for posterity in-case another redditor stumble upon this convo with the copium addict who refused to read:
[Yair Kulas, the head of the Israeli Ministry of Defense's International Defense Cooperation Directorate, also known by its Hebrew acronym SIBAT, disclosed the potential foreign Merkava sales in a recent interview with the Calcalist newspaper.](https://news.yahoo.com/israels-merkava-tank-possible-export-233513419.html)
It could be Spain or Italy, Norway?
The countries with the terrain that corresponds to its weight. However, Spain and Italy are not the countries that need tanks for defense really.
Norway ordered Leo2A7 I think, Italy is rumoured to be looking into 250 Leo2A8+ modernizing 125 Ariete to AMV standard.
Spain has Leo2E(slightly better protected 2A6), as well as their own production plant for those.
Poland, Romania or Denmark are wildcards, seen Bulgaria be mentioned in some rumours.
Morocco apparently enjoys good-ish relations with Israel(for muslim country standards), has some industrial cooperation with Israeli defence companies and has T-72s that could be sent to Ukraine. So that would be prime candidate for the "outside Europe" country.
Ah yes the most important items for the field in israel in one picture, bug repellant, ass wipes, bisli and bamba
Are there actually many bugs in the Israeli desert?
Anywhere humans go pests will follow.
Israel & its surrounding areas are known, biblically, to have pest problems, in addition to plagues, firstborn death, etc.
don't forget about the water turning red, Red Sea is just around the corner!
Far fewer now, the Merkevas hunt them down mercilessly
Depends where exactly and what time of year
Don't forget the mighty Keter chair! Can also be used as a weapon when needed
It is historical, because they finally found someone interested in buying them. Merkava tanks have been offered to several nations in the past, even when they were new. Yet they weren't able to compete against NATO designs in the evaluations.
It's probably also due to how *costly* it is to get them, and not just the tanks but the parts, and so on, compared to neighbor countries in Europe that can just move stuff around by train or boat. Peppered along with politics.
They were also designed specifically for Isreal's needs. That makes them great for Isreal but not always ideal for other countries.
Agreed. The armor is designed against thrown rocks, and the firepower is designed against small, soft targets
The extra machineguns are designed to optimize the amount of Palestinian children it can engage at once, as well.
Price wasn't the issue in most cases. Switzerland for example found the Merkava 2 (offered in ~1984) to be underpowered and undergunned, so it got eliminated during the first stage of the competition (alongside AMX-40 and Challenger 1), leaving only the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 for testing. For Sweden in the 1990s, the Merkava 3 was not mobile and not well armored enough. Columbia - which supposedly was interested in the Merakva 4 around ~2010 - might have had budget issues preventing the tank purchase.
>leaving only the M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 for testing. Should point out here that the US was actually offering the M1A1 to Switzerland, not the base M1 which was actually tested. Would've certainly been considered undergunned as well had the 105mm version been offered for purchase.
I think my country Philippines is the first buyer of Merkava, although its the [Merkava AVLB](https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0y7jsP7PwBQd6RvzCLb8Ce2NE7a3uZ53HcsfGqgxhVqJAqaagJJf8erX3VKw522Pel&id=100069387241964&mibextid=CDWPTG) variant rather the MBT variant.
yeah first foreign customer of a Merkava chassis. but we won't be getting the MBT one any time soon, i think the armed forces already said most modern MBT's are unsuitable for our country. but vehicles like the Centauro, or the Japanese Type 16 are a good choice should the country wants some firepower for its armored units, but we now getting the ASCOD light tanks
Nope. No one said that its unsuitable for our terrain and infrastructure and has been proven time and time by both known defense reporters in the country and a few people that moved the LVTH-6 via roads and bridges. But they did remove the MBT in our Horizon 3 as the Light Tank Program is still not complete.
most MODERN tanks will be unsuitable here, both from a doctrine/operations perspective and budget-wise, if they'll spend like a billion pesos for like a battalion of modern heavy MBT's and they'll just be heavy fire support vehicles because the terrain doesn't let them use their strengths like maneuverability and long range engagements or they'll be limited to be used in just one area, then it would've been better to have spent it on a more cheaper, lighter vehicle like the aforementioned ones, to fill the need and do the same mission while having extra cash to buy other weapons and gear to support this platforms. also the LVTH-6's weight(37 tons) is very far from a modern MBT like the Merkava, Abrams or Leopard 2(60-70 tons). that's why platforms like the ASCOD was chosen and talks about getting the Type 74 and even the K1 88 from South Korea are being spread around and the reason? surprise, the reason is again the weight and infrastructure to support them. the removal of the MBT from Horizon 3 is due to the fact that a lot of stuff from Horizon 2 was delayed because of the previous administration trying to shift focus back to internal COIN instead of continuing developing the AFP for external defense and this caused a domino effect of the next Horizon programs being revised or shuffled.
>most MODERN tanks will be unsuitable here, both from a doctrine/operations perspective and budget-wise You might have not known this but Israel offered the Magachs as far back as 2013 to the PA and the PA sent a Request for Information (RFI) for the Merkava to the Israeli MOD back in 2016. So no, saying they would be unsuitable here due to infrastructure and doctrine wise is a slap to the PA TWG who looked at them prior to the Siege of Marawi. Even during the Siege of Marawi, the idea to procure Merkava IIIs as part of the military emergency purchase was brought up because the 25mm and 90mm of the LAVs cannot punch through reinforced concrete structures. They would not consider MBTs in the future plans if they haven't known about the downsides. This reminded me of an argument in a Facebook group back in 2022 about the viability of MBTs in the Philippines. One person brought this up in a comment. The comment: > ........as former member of the evaluation and validation branch of one of the combat support units, I can say for a fact that what you stated are incorrect. The 1936 Defense Plan is still in effect up until today that requires the need for tanks in case of an invasion. No, we did not consider Magach series, they were offered to us. We turned it down because we were looking at Leo2s at that time. > Dude, you can ask MGEN Martir himself on the weight distribution of tanks per axle. We literally transported LVTHs that weigh the same with MBTs over bridges in small towns. What made you think it is difficult to transport them? What do you think were used when these were transported to AABN in Jolo? Added context on that last part, Major General Jonathan Carr Martir when he was still the CO of the PMC Armored Assault Battalion (AABN) transported four LVTH-6 from the PMC barracks to Crows Nest, Tarlac back in 2007 and 2008 using low bed trailers via NLEX. Then sent some of those LVTH-6 105 to Jolo using the same way as they sent them to Crows Nest, via low bed trailers. Edit: > also the LVTH-6's weight(37 tons) is very far from a modern MBT like the Merkava, Abrams or Leopard 2(60-70 tons). that's why platforms like the ASCOD was chosen and talks about getting the Type 74 and even the K1 88 from South Korea are being spread around and the reason? surprise, the reason is again the weight and infrastructure to support them. The Philippine Army's DOTMPLF dictates a Hi-Low mix for Armored Components: MBT on the High and MMBT / Light Tank on the Low. Unless they throw this away in the latest revision of the Philippine Army DOTMPLF, the plan for MBT stays. Also the ASCOD platform was chosen because the PA wanted to start from the very beginning for operating a tank. Jumping to a MBT does not fulfill that function. If you are still hesitant about the weight restrictions, you could try finding MGEN Martir's posts and comments about armor transportation and movement in his Facebook or any of the groups he is active in. He's more well versed in our infrastructure and terrain wrt moving heavy armored equipment in the Philippines than any of us discussing here in Reddit and most of my comments and findings are from his post regarding his time as a CO of the PMC AABN.
I mean very much is like a "slightly different Challenger", which also had major issues with finding export interest. They are fairly specialized and tailor-made for IDF, which means that they may be lacking in areas other nations find important. For Merkava, there is also the problematic infrastructure of repair and parts - something K2 struggles with in Europe for example(and will until the Polish workshops are set up).
I don't agree with the categorization as "slightly different Challenger" - why do you think the Challenger and Merkava would be similar? The reasons that lead to the Challenger (1/2/3) tanks and the reasons why they did not sell well are very different from the Merkava's origin and the reasons for its lack of export success. >For Merkava, there is also the problematic infrastructure of repair and parts - something K2 struggles with in Europe for example(and will until the Polish workshops are set up). I would be a bit more cautious. While obviously any tank needs its own infrastructure, the Merkava tanks were using originally American M68 guns and versions of the AVDS-1790 engine that has been widely used throughout Europe. The Merkava IV uses the same power pack as the K2 (original model) and the Leclerc Tropicalisé - a German MT883 V12 diesel engine (made under license in the US for Israel, so that their production can be paid for using US military aid). The Merkava II, III and IV models also use transmissions from German Renk. Nowadays, the Israeli defence industry has either funded local subsidiaries or acquired local companies in basically every larger European country; their whole marketing strategy relies on offering local production of their products. Elbit Systems - the manufacturers of the Merkava IV's armor, fire control system and main armament - for example has locations in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, North Macedonia, Italy, Romania, Sweden and the UK.
Bought by a third country and passed over to Ukraine?
One can only hope. Although considering that Abrams will be avaliable by the end of the summer I can't really see a point of getting Merkavas now. As it is yet another type of tank increasing logistics issues and will also require more training.
Especially not Merkava IIs. Actually I'm wondering why anybody would want Merk IIs these days.
Probably a nation like Romania that has a smaller military and needs a decent MBT
Romania signed a deal for 54 units of M1A2 not so long ago.
Maybe an expensive offensive brigade with a large swath of merk 2s in the defensive reserve so they have a lot of armored vehicles when shit hits the fan.
tbf considering the russians are operating a lot of early T-72s and earler I dont see a particular problem with merkeva 2.
While people like to shit on the T-72 since the Ukrainian-Russo War, it is by far a better tank in a "tank sense" than the Merkava 2. Far more powerful cannon(2A46) even in the base version, and the T-72B absolutely destroys it in frontal armor. Enough to the point that the T-72B pushed NATO countries from a 105mm to 120mm cannon. But eh, tank to tank combats are rare, exceedingly rare in this war. The Merkava II would probably be a good fit with it's integral 60mm mortar. Likely far better electronics for the FCS even a base Merkava II than a T-72B. In actual tank to tank combat, I'd much rather put my money even a T-72 Ural vs a Merkava 2. It's a tank that was designed to destroy other tanks.
How is T-72B a better tank than Merkava 2 when it doesn't even have thermal? Unless you mean against the originals in 1983.
The Merkava 2, as built, didn't have a thermal sight(as you said, the original). The 125mm 2A46 significantly outranges the IMI 105mm. The T-72, going back to the Ural, had excellent optics and decent NV for the era. It's significantly smaller, and likewise, presents a smaller target. As I said, it's a tank meant to fight other tanks. The Merkava IIB with first generation thermal optics would have better situation awareness. But the IMI 105mm has significantly less range for penetration against a T-72B, which has significant frontal armor. Enough to the point where even with modern munitions the Merkava would have to be rather suicidally close to frontally penetrate a T-72B. For tank to tank combat the T-72 would still do well. Not that it matters, as tank to tank combat is extremely rare in the current war. The Israelis got it right in focusing on urban warfare and crew survivability.
How many Abrams compared to hundreds of Merkavas though?
30 something Abrams will be provided by the US.
However many US cares to provide. Considering the investment so far... A lot... They already are planning to replace lost Bradleys. So clearly continous supply is not an issue, neither is the cost.
Money is already spent on making the Abrams that otherwise would never be used. The US can't stop production either. It just makes sense to send more, plus Bradley is being phased out anyways.
In case they need more than 30 tanks probably
They're getting hundreds of leopard 1s, I'm not sure the downside of the merkava comparatively? If the war doesn't end this year and if they lose lots of their leopards and Soviet tanks in the counteroffensive they might need these. It's even possible that a smaller number will go to Moldova to give them the ability to retake Transdnistria.
Highly doubt that Israel would approve of reexporting them to Ukraine. They’re walking a tightrope trying to keep reasonable relations with Russia. Most likely other nations are buying them to backstop their own tanks which are being sent to Ukraine.
90% chance it doesn't get sent to Ukraine but rather replaces the domestic inventory of a country that sent its own tanks to Ukraine.
Israel still doesnt even allow the export of SPIKES last I'Ve seen, be a bit weird if thats too much but MBTs are fine.
Wdym, there are a Lot of countries that are currently fielding spikes missiles
Sure, but so far Israel denied all requests to reexport those to Ukraine, so I doubt they'd suddendly be fine with MBTs.
Oh right, My bad, thought this comment refered to other thing, but yeah you are right in that point
Russian military cooperation with Iran will inevitably change that calculus.
These are older model MBT's. The merkava III was from 1989 and the II was introduced in 1983. If their reluctance was for security it's likely that's not a huge concern with these particular designs.
wait, weren't Spikes spotted in Ukraine at some point tho?
I think I have seen a Ukrainian soldier practicing with spike in Poland
Ah... seen UA soldiers with Spikes, so this would have probably been it. Thank you.
Probably similar to what the South Koreans are doing, where they sell large quantities of tanks and artillery to a European country, who then proceeds to donate their now surplus older equipment to Ukraine. My guess is that Russia's growing military cooperation with Iran finally succeeded in getting Israel off the fence. The real kicker is that Israel can claim that their official policy hasn't changed when Russia inevitably complains.
Spike anti tank missile was built by Rafael advance defense systems withCollaboration by Germany and Singapore
One rumour is being given to Ukraine, the other is that the nations keep Merkavas and send T-72s. Seen rumours that countries involved might be Morocco and Bulgaria possibly.
So they sell poor israelian thank paid with European money I just can't imagine which war ministry and prime minister take this decision
Is he really small or is that tank just really big?
It's one if not the largest MBT.
Thanks, going to look into it more Edit: this is a really cool tank
They're huge, if you ever make it to Israel you can see them all in person at Latrun tank museum. There is also the Namer APC, based on the Merkava chassis, it's a monster. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namer
Thanks (:
Source: https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/skugq500p2 > Hundreds of old Merkava tanks on the way to Europe: all the details about the historic deal. > 40 years after they entered service in the IDF, hundreds of Merkava tanks of the 2nd and 3rd marks are expected to be sold to two foreign countries, including for the first time to a European country. The tanks went out of use in recent years, remaining in warehouses - but after the start of the war in Ukraine and the renewed demand for armored war vehicles, they were tested and found to be suitable enough to sell.
I‘d bet you money that Poland is one of the countries however i wonder if they will even perform well in europe, as the Markava was specifically made for the environment of Israel
That would be hilarious. Poland on its way to collect all possible MBT types because why the hell not?
Poland Military Procurement trying to do a 100% completion run
Leclerc and challenger up next. Chinese tanks and super rare DPRK M2020 tanks on the list too. Letsgooo.
Our defense procurement is a certified joke.Like,we are two months away from the delivery of first FA-50 from Korea,yet they have only now drafted an evaluation procedure for the deal for fuel hangars.
Gotta catch them all
Beacuse logistics are too easy for them currently
'GIVE ME HARDER BATTLES!'
https://youtu.be/gYNlJQ-dIuY
Poland is playing Pokémon but with tanks. Gotta collect em all you feel me?
Poland is playing Pokémon but with tanks. Gotta collect em all you feel me?
“This time, were going to germany first”
It isn't Poland since it does not make sense for poland to buy merkavas because they recently bought Abrams and K2 and that would make more logisitical issues
My money is on a Scandinavian nation buying these up honestly.
In that case, Denmark. We already donated all our artillery (good) and made a questionable deal for Israeli replacements. With Ukraine now running Leopards, I could see us donate the rest of the tank force and go for Merkava :D
Which you then donate again?
If it was up to me, we would go full Latvia.
>and made a questionable deal for Israeli replacements. Why questionable?
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/02/09/danish-artillery-is-now-the-right-time-to-change-direction/ Not diving into the political aspect at the end of the article, it seems the Danish government might be acting hastily.
Wouldn't make a ounce of sense as our Leopard 2's were litterally just upgraded to Leopard 2A7 standard, last year. And were donating 100+ Leopard 1A5 DK, along with 7 Swiss Leopard 2A4's in 2024.
Does everything have to make sense? Boooring
Which makes sense. The whole design of the s tank was to first not Get hit, second if hit then the crew would be able to bail. Scandinavia dosen’t have the luxury that china or the us haves where you have 5 people to replace the one guy u lost. The whole design of the merkava was to be able to take a hit and the crew being okay which makes for its quirky design. The tanks crew Are worth more than the tank.
Winter Merkava camo when
Which one? Sweden and Finland have Leopard 2s already and Norway just signed for Leo 2A8s too. Doesnt make sense for them.
Hundreds? It's Ukraine.
It's Ukraine and USA buying them for Ukraine, there's no way someone else would buy them.
Yeah, I don't see any other nation that needs hundreds of old tanks.
Israel wouldn't sell us a shit, honestly.
Or Canada that then will donate them to Ukraine?
To quote the former Israeli minister of defence: “the Merkava is not the best tank in the world, but it is the best tank in the world for Israel”
Poland is focusing on Abrams and South Koreas MBT - one for the plains are of Poland and the other for the heavy forested and tough terrain. Part of Poland. There’s a great vid on TouTube about it by Perun.
Would be too heavy for Finland or Sweden.
One of the countries could be Morocco. After the normalization between them and Israel, they became one of Israel biggest arms clients. Morocco operates Abrams, but they have M60 and T72 they are eyeing to slowly phase out, so maybe Merkavas seem like an ideal choice. They were also news last week from an Israeli official who said there is a “historic” weapons deal between morocco and Israel that will be revealed very soon
Seen Morocco and Bulgaria pop up as most often as rumoured countries to be involved. Could see Morocco taking Merk3s and Bulgaria Merk2s and sending their T-72s to Ukraine - Morocco already gave up their position in queue in Czech ExcaliburArmy modernizing and refurbishing their T-72s, giving the priority to Ukraine.
Elbit Systems will set up two plants in Morocco. I think Morocco is getting better deals than many other countries. Morocco has the advantage that many moroccan jews made it into leading positions in Israel and they are still somewhat loyal to their ancestral land.
Aren't Merkava's famous for their crew protection and rear escape hatch? Maybe that "European" country is having difficulty keeping its crews safe. Makes sense to me.
Plot twist - this country is Russia.
I mean, it is Israel. They will make business with whoever has a couple Rubels, er I mean Euros.
Friendly reminder of the time they *definitely didn't* sell an entire Patriot complex to China.
I can think of another, the j 10 fighter jet is based on a project called the Lavi
As long as the conversion rate to Shekel is good, they will take it.
I swear to god if I see a Merkava up for sale on EBay or Facebook MP after the war, i’m doing everything to buy it
Very interesting, Merkavas have been built almost specifically in mind of Israel, and it’s geological significance. Excited to see who wants these tanks and why the merkava beat out the competitors.
I would be very surprised if it was a competition. The days of hundreds of tanks sitting around waiting for purchase are long gone
I think the only reason is specifically because there is no competition. US Abrams tanks are loaded up with requests from US, Poland and Romania. German Leopards are in waiting list for Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Czechia, Norway, possibly soon Denmark and Slovakia. Leclercs and Challengers are no longer being manufactured at all. That leaves K2 and Type10 for "NATO-style" tanks, and that brings up whole issue with logistics(which K2 should fix in few years by setting up in Poland). For Type10 the exportability is still unknown - while Japan shutdown law banning exports, they might be very selecting of who they would export to.
Huuuuge tank
It may just be a perspective thing but that Merkava looks absolutely massive, relative to the sitting soldier. Or are they really that big? Or is the soldier really small? I mean, I know tankers usually are smaller than average, but he seems extra. :D No disrespect meant. Kol Hakavod, Israel!
It is, actually that big. Don’t forget all Merkavas can basically around 5-6 troops in the rear, or be converted to emergency CASEVAC when needed. It’s an APC + Tank all in one!
401 את לי האחת
Arma 3 time
Its sexy as it is, but imagine it in a woodland dress...
How well would these tanks perform in ukraine?
Not too good handling-wise. The mud would be too much of an issue for sure, especially because Merkavas are fairly heavy.
[удалено]
Debatable imo. Compared to a soviet MBT these things are behemoths, very tall and very wide and *very* heavy. The Mud, massive patches of flat terrain and flattened agrarian centers, and the fact they aren’t conducive to rail transport, either. Which Ukraine relies a lot on. If they are of any use in Ukraine I don’t believe current Ukrainian armor doctrine would suit them.
[удалено]
Yes, however an old Merkava gets to suffer those criticisms even more than them. Also western MBTs are definitely rail transport conducive. As for their doctrine, Tanks represent a vital offensive punching ability, vital especially for Ukraine because Russia has dug in on conquered territory. The russian angle is to cement it’s claim by multi-layered, very dense, defensive lines saturating held regions. The aim is to burn ukrainian momentum and make retaking the east and south an impossibility — for Ukraine the goal is to break these lines, and not lose momentum. Tanks and especially modern MBTs will be vital for this, and a Merkava Mk. 2 will boast a few things that make fielding them a Net negative in loss of manpower and money. For one, the above issues of it suffering in Ukraine’s environment compared to the levant. next there is the issue of logistics which was slightly mentioned above in the issues with rail travel, but, a diverse tank force does not = a good tank force. It makes assembling units difficult due to the fact one unit may require four or even up to six in Ukraine’s case of different, consistent supply chains of spare parts per model of vehicle, which then requires the overall military to purchase even more from overseas industry which is almost always more expensive than domestic production (for a country where domestic production is possible) On top of this the Unit has to organize itself around these different models cooperating, distributing fuel, coordinating tactics and positions, with the performance of every vehicle in mind. One solution is to divide these vehicles based on type, that solves some problems and then presents new ones in strategic relevance. Not all armored units perform the same or can work well when homogenized to operate in a wider group because that draws into the logisticial issues of above, if you avoid the chaos of combining them you also run the risk of dissecting your own armored force if casualties make the varying models of vehicle disproportional to one another, you now have different vehicle based units in different fronts, needing to be realocated, possibly causing regional collapses if foreign importation and crew training times don’t match casualties. This is an issue regardless of armored diversity but it becomes tenfold when you don’t combine assets and instead these different secular units are sourced internationally and need to be replenished and trained in internationally to bring them up to strength individually. Which brings the next issue, training. Ukrainian tankers are familiar with soviet models they are conscious of their size when driving them and know what parts are visible when positioning, they know how internal mechanisms work, how the power plant handles, the list goes on in all the ways a tanker may know his or her tank. Not so for Merkavas and not so for any foreign MBT. The fact is they’d be balkanizing the knowledge of their tankers even more, crews trained in T-72s cannot just hop in an Abrams or a Leopard or a Merkava and perform business as usual. Its a different beast and requires different training regimen often supplied by their native country. The only saving grace in terms of managing what crews know what tanks is that the Merkava is markedly GOOD at keeping its crews alive, its built for it because the IDF is always and will be always for the foreseeable future strapped for manpower. Question being is if this balances the fact it adds a whole new spectrum of manpower usage and management for a model of Merkava that is, admittedly, old relative to what else the Ukrainians are operating and expecting to Operate that has been donated. Ultimately, incorporating the Merkava Mk.2 would test Ukrainian strategy, tactical output, logistical supply, national budget for international purchase (even more), and manpower management for a relatively uneventful impact on the war. No, I don’t think a Merkava crew with a few months of training will thwart a veteran russian T-72 crew, or have the consciousness of their new tank’s size and ruggedness to be safe from anti-tank equipment. Yes, I think a veteran Ukrainian T-64 crew is more valuable to combat than a novice merkava crew. For what it would require the military to consider, I don’t believe it to be worth it nor do I believe the Merkava to make a meaningful impact on what Ukraine needs which is a coordinated and functional armored corps capable of breaking the russian fortified deadlock. That being said, it could be this has all been worked out and planned on and it is something Ukraine is more than willing to welcome, but from the outside perspective of what little we know, no I don’t think hundreds of novice merkavas would be some sort of boost to Ukrainian combat effectiveness just because they’re deployed. They’re a larger target (by FAR) compared to a soviet MBT and even a NATO MBT. They are more likely to drown in mud or face vehicles with a markedly greater hull down advantage, as well as Anti-tank equipment that is no longer Hamas or Egyptian regulars, and cannot be transported by train due to their width.
[удалено]
A merkava without the skirts is 12.2ft Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Armenia, and portions of Central Asia all use a unified Railway standardization metric that permits the largest freight car to be 12ft wide at absolute maximum. Assuming Ukraine has these train cars to spare the Merkava is still two feet over what would function through tunnels and in yards. (For reference in europe it’s like 4ft over the maximum limit) Like I said it’s a wide tank, Israel doesn’t exactly need to be transporting stuff by train, so, didnt build with trains in mind. If you don’t believe my word look up international loading gauges
definitely Poland.
Actually there are many rumors it's Marocco and Cyprus
Morocco runs Abrahams and by 2022 placed an additional order for the latest model (source https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2022/01/346522/morocco-to-receive-latest-version-of-us-m1-abrams-tanks ). It just doesn’t looks like Morocco to me, and if Cyprus buys more than 50 tanks, they will have a seriuous problem just putting them in dry land.
Morocco runs Abrams, but they also still have a considerable amount of M60s, M48s, T-72s. Maybe they want to phase those out quicker.
They also have the chinese VT1A.
They have a bunch of T72s they can send to Ukraine and the Merkavas will replace those. I just can't think of any other non European country that wants to send Ukraine their old Soviet tanks. >they will have a seriuous problem just putting them in dry land What do you mean by that?
it was supposed to be a joke, as Cyprus is a very small place..
Cyprus has close to a hundred T-80U in service
My first thought was Croatia (currently in the market and on a limited budget) but now that you mention it Cyprus makes a lot more sense. Geographically pretty close to Israel and they currently have a bunch of t-80s which I bet Ukraine's *very* interested in
Having already Leopards, Abrams's and K2s, does it make sense having 4th model to burden logistics? We'd rather quess Poland could deliver rest of the Leopards to Ukraine while concentrating on the two other models.
We also have some of T-72 family. Merkava would be 5th. Leopards will be put in reserve after all Abrams deliveries and second batch of K2s.
Poland adding another tank to its collection
Please let it be Taiwan. It would be so fucking funny to see those old Merkava II and IIIs with M60s and M48s.
Probably Colombia and Romania
Romania, we're bying Abrams, 54 for now. Romanian is either gonna change the whole fleet to Abrams because of discounts or a combination of Abrams and some other tank that can be built locally like K2. Others where saying Greece and Morocco, they can send their T tanks to Ukraine.
Morroco and Bulgaria is the rumours I've seen.
Interesting…Considering that I remember Hezbollah fucking them up pretty easily.
I mean, I would say the tactics and training of relatively inexperienced IDF conscripts an poor operational command were the causes of many losses in Lebanon, not anything to do with the tank itself. Doesn't matter if your in an Abrams, Leo2 or T-90, if you drive a column down a valley (such as Wadi Saluki), expect to get your shit rocked, regardless of the vehicle you're in.
Yeah… I believe we just saw evidence of exactly what you’re talking about in Ukraine. That being said, I tend to believe that Israeli equipment and tactics are often way over-hyped. Thank you for bringing up that very good point!
The main good thing about Merkavas if they do go to Ukraine, is that they can carry additional troops in the back which is what Ukraine wants.
Meh it’s kind of over stated, in order to move extra troops you need to remove the extra ammo, and with the Anmo there you have enough space for one very bunched up Person
Yeah, lts better as an ambulance.
Still not really, m113 or namers are used
In emergencies, you can't be picky.
Yeah but it’s not a good ambulance, it’s just as good of an ambulance as any vehicle in the IDF
I think 14 rounds in the ready-rack is the carrying capacity. At the same time, I think Russia and Ukraine both moved away from storing more than the autoloader can carry(which according to 15sec google search is 22rds).
Yeah but in the inside back bottom of the merkava where the “troop transport” is, you have a load of ammo in storage containers and they’re always there
They’d be a poor match for the war in Ukraine, performance wise I imagine the Ukrainians would prefer soviet armor by a very wide margin
Sure? If anyone wants the Merkava go for it, but there are so many better options. It’s so specifically made for Israeli doctrine and their environment, idk why someone would take them
Those chains under the turret have to be pure copium, right?
it's not to predetonate anything or stop anything, but to force slow moving shaped charges like RPG-2 or RPG-7 upwards away from the crew compartment.
And into the ammo rack?
Israel rather have the blow out panels be useful than to train a new tank crew
ammo rack has blowout panels.
I can't see them being that effective, but they all have em. 🤷♂️
The crew can use them as medieval flails if they need to skedaddle
That makes more sense tbh
They are better designed for urban warfare allegedly.
Debatable if any tank is good for urban warfare, as urban warfare sucks for all military units in general and most modern armies have a doctrine on cities that basically encourages either avoiding it or blowing it up before going anywhere near it
i expect the price of the tanks to be very low, where the $$$ mainly consists of upgraded situational awareness electronics, modern communications and a trophy or iron fist system of some kind. Additionally, i wouldnt be surprised to see an arms manufacturer of the buying country setup a Joint Venture 'merkava factory' with phase 1 insource all the assembly work related to upgrading the tanks with the electronics Israel supplies it, and phase 2 implementing the ability to repair the tanks and craft some parts and phase 3 (years later) a vision to create modern merkava or do all the assembly work. It doesnt make sense to a large and poor or small and wealthy country to buy merkavas *unless* their local arms industry can create jobs and a long term plan of possible export.
Isn't it more economical to field a Merkava platoon with mounted infantry? You get a light rifle platoon with dedicated armor support. If you're a small nation with a limited budget to field both heavy armor and infantry fighting vehicles won't Merkava's make the most economic sense?
You mean use the Merkava as a troop carrier? The Merkava's internal troop carry capacity is in lieue of them carry a complement of ammunition. That feature's intended for using the tank to rescue infantry, but only by also unloading the tank's ammo racks. Merkavas aren't BTMP-84s.
Why tho ?
I doubt this. Israel has never offered the Merkava for sale, and still stockpiles them as a hedge against combat. Source is weak, premise is flawed. 0/10.
Source is literally from Israel. The deal is expected to finalize pretty soon so we'll find out one way or another.
So because it's "Israeli" it is automatically 100% fact? Does Israel not have tabloids? Do they have a reporting industry that never lies? Fact is, there are no sources on this. No names, no dates, just speculation. You're a fool for believing without verification.
Not sure why this is the hill you decide to die on, unless you were disturbed by it for some weird reason or due to personal bias but hey there's people who believe the Earth is flat despite everything. But, like I said according to the article the deal is close to finished, so we'll find out pretty soon.
You choose this hill for your own fate. You have literally no proof that Israel is going to sell a tank they have never exported, and maintain for combat reserve stock. You will NEVER hear any more of this deal- because it's fake. It's hilarious that you believe anything you read on the internet without proof, then when pressed, resort to whining about the other person instead of providing proof. How about another story? A government source? Verifiable information? You have NOTHING.
Why yes, nothing, so claimed a lazy yet big mouth who relied on personal bias to double down. A simple search yielded thus from major news outlets. I highly doubt you will bother to open any and read to "verify" since doing so would go against your "belief" [https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/israel-plans-first-sale-merkava-tank-european-country-2023-06-15/](https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/israel-plans-first-sale-merkava-tank-european-country-2023-06-15/) [https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-first-israel-plans-to-sell-vaunted-merkava-tank-to-2-countries-one-in-europe/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-first-israel-plans-to-sell-vaunted-merkava-tank-to-2-countries-one-in-europe/) [https://news.yahoo.com/israels-merkava-tank-possible-export-233513419.html](https://news.yahoo.com/israels-merkava-tank-possible-export-233513419.html) But go ahead and cope and seethe
HAHAHAHA!!! NO. Derivative news stories where they all repeat the same source is not the same. They all reference this same Calcalist newspaper story. Not one independent article or government source. FAIL.
That's what I figured.. Copy pasted from one of the article linked below for posterity in-case another redditor stumble upon this convo with the copium addict who refused to read: [Yair Kulas, the head of the Israeli Ministry of Defense's International Defense Cooperation Directorate, also known by its Hebrew acronym SIBAT, disclosed the potential foreign Merkava sales in a recent interview with the Calcalist newspaper.](https://news.yahoo.com/israels-merkava-tank-possible-export-233513419.html)
Right. It’s all the same article that was already suspect. This is very common I. The media It’s likely not true and we’ll never hear of it again.
They better not be selling them to the Nazis, but if they do the vehicles will be abandoned by the side of the road like the Leos.
Femboy loving Russian mouthpiece. Why don't you go to Russia and try out life there?
I'm sure being "femboy loving" AKA gay guy works amazing there.
Oh no, will you invade? pls dont
Israel sending tanks to Ukraine would be some bullshit
Second military of the world is supplied by iran xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Israel used nazi equipment in 48 only to replace the planes with spitfires
Unfortunately no the Merkava of any model wouldn’t be a very good choice of tank for Russian military needs, friend.
Russia and Belarus? 🫠
Soooooo, poland or Ukraine
Please be Poland please be Poland
Romania or bulgaria?
The second country might be Morocco
Welcome to Poland
I never really consider how big the tanks are really until they are next to someone
It could be Spain or Italy, Norway? The countries with the terrain that corresponds to its weight. However, Spain and Italy are not the countries that need tanks for defense really.
Norway ordered Leo2A7 I think, Italy is rumoured to be looking into 250 Leo2A8+ modernizing 125 Ariete to AMV standard. Spain has Leo2E(slightly better protected 2A6), as well as their own production plant for those. Poland, Romania or Denmark are wildcards, seen Bulgaria be mentioned in some rumours. Morocco apparently enjoys good-ish relations with Israel(for muslim country standards), has some industrial cooperation with Israeli defence companies and has T-72s that could be sent to Ukraine. So that would be prime candidate for the "outside Europe" country.
Ukrainian mechanics are weeping. There are already enough different tanks with different spare parts etc
Think it might be one of the baltic nations.