ARMORED WARFARE: Israel Drops Stryker for Merkava APC

Strategypage.com ^

[Dan Middleton]

January 11, 2005: Israel has decided not to buy American Stryker wheeled armored vehicles for two of its infantry brigades. Instead, it has designed a new armored personnel carrier (APC) based on the chassis of older Merkava I and II series tanks. These tanks are being retired, and one such Merkava I is being turned into a prototype of the new “Nemerah” (“Tigress”) vehicle. This APC has the thick armor of the Merkava, but the turret is removed and a remotely controlled (from inside the vehicle) heavy machine-gun would be added. The Merkava lends itself to this kind of modification, because the engine is mounted in the front and there is already a door in the back of the vehicle. The Israelis liked the speed of the Stryker, but they apparently feel they will still be fighting in urban areas, against Palestinian terrorists, in the next ten years. There, the Nemerah has an edge, because of its thicker armor. Out in the open, the Stryker has the edge. If the Israelis cannot afford to build the Nenerah, they will add armor to their existing supply of M-113 APCs.

[An Old Marine]

Additionally they already own the Merkava. Altering the existing inventory would cost a fraction of the price of the new Stryker. Its just as well, the US taxpayer would end up footing the bill for Isreal to get the Stryker one way or another.

[oust the louse]

Hey Dan,check out Force Protection...they make armored vehicles for mine fields and various uses in combat. I've got some of their stock so this is of interest in some form...check it out...

http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=FRCP&read=33692

[DemforBush]

If memory serves, the Israelis rejected the original version of the Bradley as well, for similar reasons.

I would imagine a Merkava-based APC/IFV would have fairly high maintenance cost (all that heavy tank armor and the damage-prone engine/tranny set up). But the crews should be able to survive a frontal hit from just about any RPG/ATGM out there.

Sounds like another example of Israeli ingenuity and common sense in defense matters.

[Tallguy]

Sounds like another example of Israeli ingenuity and common sense in defense matters.

Agreed. If I'm going into an urban streetfight, I'd rather be in a Merkava.

But then again, the Israelis don't have to worry about getting their armored force halfway round the world to fight. They pretty much drive into combat.

[rellimpank]

--their legislature doesn't have to spread the pork quite as widely in the defense bill as our Congress either--

[Paul_Denton]

Israel has always made Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) have the ability to carry troops. They modified M-60s to do this too.

[JSteff]

"Sounds like another example of Israeli ingenuity and common sense in defense matters."

If only we got the same life & usage out of all our military equipment. I know we do get it out of some but probably not as many as we could.

[eno_]

Sounds like another example of Israeli ingenuity and common sense

Yeah, it's called a performance threshold. Something that fails against known IED/mine threats is as worthless as riding around in a canvas-sided cart.

[Qatar-6]

That, and a correct assessment of their needs.

The Israelis don't have to deploy land forces by sea or air. So no weight /size restrictions

Armor saves lives - most armies in the world are going towards heavier APCs (old tank hulls)

We went for the stryker mainly for deployability reasons

[Wiz]

I think track based vehicles is better fit for the environment than Strykers and believe Israel did the correct thing. It's not that Stryker is bad, but that it seems that tracked vehicles do better on rough terrain also common in Israel.