Merkava Myth Busting

One of the things I've noticed in the past years when discussing the Merkava and its comparison with other tanks, is that most people base their view on it, on myths. 

I'll try to deal with some of the more prominent ones here:

Myth #1: The Engine is its Main Armor

This is not entirely true. The frontal hull armor, at least on the later variants, is in no way thinner than contemporary tanks. In fact, the Line of Sight (LoS) thickness of the Merkava 4 hull armor is greater than most contemporary tanks, rated at 750mm of composite armor.

So where did this myth come from? 

In the late 70's when the Merkava 1 development was finalized, the Merkava was claimed by its creators - most prominently Israel Tal (a renowned general) to be the safest tank in the world, owing to a rather unique design feature of having the engine installed at the front. 

This meant that while the armor itself was comparable to concurrent developments in the west, the tank afforded a higher degree of protection. The engine would shield the crew from penetrating shots.

That, combined with the fact that for a very long time pictures of the hull armor were either scarce or non-existent, created a myth that the armor is very thin and reliant on the engine.

Best way to think of the engine is as a last line of defense against any penetrating threat, before the crew is in danger.

Opened engine cover during preparations. 2014

Myth #2: The Added Protection Comes From The Engine Alone

It's quite popular to assume that the engine is the only design feature the Merkava owes its higher degree of protection to. 

However, there are quite a few other benefits that are no less important than physical shielding.

For example, the forward placement of the engine allows placing the ammo at the very rear, where it is least susceptible to enemy fire. Former General Tal, head of the Merkava development program, regarded this feature as at least equivalent in protective value to the frontally mounted engine. 

The turret was accordingly empty of ammo, so that in any frontal engagement, a "catastrophic kill" would be impossible.

Rear ammo racks in Merkava 3

Another noticeable advantage was the ability of the crew to escape via the rear hatch, safe from small arms fire. If the tank was immobilized, pierced, or in any way mission-incapable, the crew would be able to escape safely and live another day. This, knowing that it takes more time and more effort to train a crew than it does to build a single tank, and knowing that crew experience is invaluable. 

Rear escape hatch weighs 500kg but opened with 1 finger

Myth #3: The Merkava Acts as APC

It may be confusing for some, especially as many have heard the Merkava is capable of transporting troops. However, not everyone is aware that for the Merkava to actually transport troops, it must give up on its task as an MBT, as it is required to dump the entirety of its ammunition (bar the Merkava 3/4 that have very few rounds in the turret) to accommodate more than 1 extra fully geared soldier.

Picked up soldiers may sit in the rear where the ammo canisters are located, by removing and dumping them, but it doesn't make their ride very comfortable. The floor and walls are riddled with spikes which connect the ammo racks to them, making it practically impossible for a soldier to lean on the wall or sit comfortably without being stabbed in the ass or turning gay. 

Thus, they have to sit in a squat-like manner with all their gear. Not only that, but you can't even put half a squad in a single tank - 4 men, while a full squad is 9 men.

Doesn't seem very comfortable

Myth #4: The Merkava is Specialized Against Insurgents

Not only is it untrue, it is exactly the opposite. The Merkava was designed from the very beginning to be the best possible counter to Syrian and Egyptian tank hordes coming from the Golan and Sinai, equipped with the latest Soviet tanks and technology. 

Key features such as ammo-free turret, low profile turret, frontal engine, and rear placed hull ammo, and rear escape hatch, are all highly useful in Armored Warfare aka Tank vs Tank engagements, as they help shield the crew and tank itself from frontal hazards (i.e tanks) and are near useless in counter-insurgency warfare. 

It doesn't mean the Merkava will lag in counter-insurgency warfare though. It has demonstrated to be a highly adaptable tank, having incorporated a highly modular construction in the Mark 3 and 4 variants which allowed to defend against future threats.

For example, the modular construction allowed to install applique armor on the flanks of Mark 2, 3 and 4 tanks, as well as install an Active Protection System on the Merkava 4M. 

Myth #5: The Merkava is Big, Heavy and Therefore Slow

While partially true for the earlier Merkava 1 and 2 tanks, it's far from truth regarding the Mark 3 and Mark 4 tanks.

The early Merkava 1 and Mark 2 had a very poor power to weight ratio. They would, however, compensate by utilizing a rather unique suspension system based on springs that would absorb shock far more efficiently than torsion bars, at the cost of slightly higher weight. 

They would accelerate slower due to the power/weight ratio, but the new suspension allowed them to drive in places where an Abrams or Leopard were simply unable (e.g Golan Heights rocky fields) and provided a smooth ride and near unparalleled accuracy on the move.

Merkava 3 and 4 took a major leap ahead of the early tanks, by introducing a much improved system named TSAWS. This way, they could keep a much higher off-road speed than contemporary tanks on any terrain. The new suspension allowed them to keep the off-road speed much closer to the top speed than usual. 

For example, if an M1A2 SEP and Merkava 4 can both reach a road speed of 64km/h, then off-road the Abrams would drive at ~40km/h while the Merkava 4 would drive at 55km/h. 

So effectively, a Merkava despite its weight, can drive noticeably faster and with more confidence over rough ground than contemporary tanks. This is best described here

Spring suspension of Merkava 4 - dual springs

Myth #6: It's a Defensive Tank in Nature, Not Offensive

If I had a penny every time I heard this, I would have like $13. 

There is no such thing as defensive tank or offensive tank. 

Tanks are built for a single purpose - push. 

They don't just sit in prepared positions all day. That's what field guns are for. They see the enemy lines, fire, and push without stopping. The front-line is where the tanks are. 

Neither is there a tank that is region-specific. Engineers rarely, if at all, think of where the tank's little adventure would be next.