Talk:Merkava

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel Portal
Merkava is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)