Jump to content
34 minutes ago, LULZ said:

Pls let us know where the new stuff you added is located so we dont have to go fishing just for one or two tanks. Could you also add Ukrainian stuff at some point

 

CTRL + F

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LULZ said:

Pls let us know where the new stuff you added is located so we dont have to go fishing just for one or two tanks. Could you also add Ukrainian stuff at some point

 

Look up anything with the words "Israeli tanks" starting from the only Smash Mouth lyrics up until humming problems. Ukrainian stuff on the other hand is something I really need to get my head around ever since the rumors that the BM Oplot has basically no armor.

Edited by Nope
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark 1-2C, Magach 6B/C

Spoiler

Israeli tanks:

- Merkava mk I (M111, M456A1)

- Merkava mk II (M111, M456A1)

- Merkava mk IIB (M111, M456A1)

- Merkava mk IIC (M111, M456A1)

- Magach 6B Gal (M111, M456A1)

- Magach 6C (M111, M456A1)

 

Yep, the Merkava mk I is that low because it's honestly a good counter to the T-72s here. Hell, some may argue that if simulating War Thunder conditions the Merkava mk I should be fighting the T-64A. First thing that comes to mind here is the armor: what people praise the Merkava for having. It's a rather unique design by being a front engine tank, meaning the crew compartment is in the middle and the turret a bit in the back. The idea here is apparently to place as much stuff in front of the crew (the entire engine compartment) in order to save them from shell fragments. Brilliant in theory, but when the Americans toyed with the idea in the 1950s they found armor maintenance to be more difficult as well as armor placement. And the Merkava mk I is no different, as the UFP is a mere 2 rather thin RHA plates with some space in between. This helps against HEAT quite a bit and 3BM-15, but stopping 3BM-22? Absolutely not happening. Maybe the engine will prevent the crew from being killed, but if the engine dies the crew bails immediately either from the top or from the rear (another nice addition from the front engine layout). The LFP is mostly a joke as normal of a 75 degree LFP design. Also, with the engine in front, the ammo is at the back exposed to the crew. If that goes off from a side shot, the crew is very likely to be cooked inside due to propellant fires. Not Soviet bad, but still pretty bad. The turret is another story entirely, having an abnormally large armor module that could very well stop 3BM-22. Seriously, its 650-700mm LoS, and it only houses the crew and radio equipment. At this point the Merkava mk I is a very hulldown oriented tank, and it is aided by good gun depression and of course a secret party trick. Reload speed is probably not as good as its contemporaries since the ammo racks are located kind of far (loader must duck a bit maybe instead of having a rack directly behind him). Turret traverse speed is probably sluggish as well, though I don't know the exact figures. The mobility on it is frankly quite bad due to its weight of 63 tons that not even a 900 hp engine can move that easily, but what else did anyone expect here? The M68 on the Merkava is no peashooter thanks to M111: a round that struck fear into the heart of the Red Army, forcing this whole HHS and 5 layer armor drama. T-72As can be taken care of at combat range, and the more elite tanks at even longer ranges than that. Speaking of long range, the FCS of the Merkava is quite odd. If one wants stabilization, one may or may not get it, and those that don't have it can retrofit it onto their tanks. I mean it's better than the French, but one can tell that the tank was rushed or that Israel didn't fully refine production. The commander sight is bonkers with up to 20x magnification to warn the gunner way ahead of time, for the latter only has up to 8x magnification. Also, the gun adjusts itself just like on the M60A3. Overall the Merkava mk 1 is a shaky tank whose performance really depends on whether there's a hill or not. It's alright against T-72As. The Merkava mk II is mostly the same except better for urban environments, with the IIB having better thermal optics and the IIC just making a difference only versus top attack weapons. Also, I know there's a 60mm mortar on Merkavas, but they don't mean jack in tank combat except if they fire smoke or WP.

 

Now, for fire support the Merkava mk 1 is backed by an Israeli M60: the Magach 6B Gal. It's pretty much an M60A1 with Israel's own Gal fire control system. What's so special about Gal? I dunno you tell me. Still, I'll assume at least similar enough to the M60A3's FCS and backed by M111 APFSDS. It's good enough. The Magach 6C is mostly just a modernized M60A3, so why one should ponder about it so much is beyond me. It still has M111 though. Still good enough. Oh, and they all have ERA so HEAT rounds will be ineffective for the first shot, which could be a saving grace when dealing with T-72s that would normally have few APFSDS rounds.

 

Merkava party tricks: To impress IDF women such as Gal Gadot, just do these. Normally when hulldown and out of ammo, tanks have to rotate in order to maintain constant pressure on enemy forces as reloading them without being at risk of getting shot is impossible on the frontlines. However, the Merkava has the ammo right at the back of the tank as well as having a rear door. Just keeping stuffing ammo into the tank from the rear door and the supplier is safe and the tank's cannon will pretty much be able to fire indefinitely long as the loader breathes. This is exactly why the Merkava is indeed the best hulldown tank. Then there's the ability to stuff infantry inside the tank, but then everything gets cramped, ammo will have to be thrown out and just the thought of grunts being in the tank can make things gross pretty quickly. The tricks are legit, but only with optimal use of the Merkava, not Israeli women. That doesn't work with them at all.

I assume you used this document as a source for the Mark 1's FCS . It should, however, be noted, that the gunner's sight magnification is disputed. It is claimed to be either x8 or x12. 

Stabilization only didn't exist for the very earliest models, as they were not quite ready back then. They were, however, quickly retrofitted onto already built tanks.

Overall, Tal described the Mark 1 as having 'substantially' improved firepower over the M48 and M60, despite them using the same ammunition. He referred to a higher maximum range of engagement that the FCS permitted, so it's hard to say they are the same on this department. Probably has mostly to do with the sights.

The document also says a typical reload rate is 7 rounds per minute, while a trained crew can reach up to 12 per minute, meaning 5 seconds between each round, if they know in advance which round to load.

 

 

Mark 2D, Magach 7A/C

Spoiler

Israeli tanks:

- Merkava mk IID (M426, M157/3)

- Magach 7A (M413, M157/3)

- Magach 7C (M413, M157/3)

 

Finally, some composite armor that isn't just spaced steel plates. This adds quite a substantial amount of SC and KE protection especially for the turret, which now boasts the thickest front side armor of any MBT in terms of LoS even if the other part of the side armor is just RHA. The effectiveness on the other hand, is not a pretty story and is quite a heated debate topic. Think of it like a bunch of nerds talking about a random girl with an average physique. Some argue she thicc, some argue she thinn. I argue the latter. This is a pretty crucial debate topic since this extends to all composite Merkavas. For now I shall argue thinn due to comfort, but still good enough for 3BM-26 in theory. Not too bad. The M68 is now equipped with M426 APFSDS: the strongest Israeli 105mm APFSDS. Yes, I know there was M413 that is an analogue to M833, but the IID just does not have the mobility for this. It needs that M426 to compete. And compete it still does with its solid FCS and unbeatable hulldown strategy. The sides also have composite armor as indicated by the rivets. Useless against large caliber APFSDS, but still nice to have in urban areas.

 

Oh and we get more Magachs to accompany the newly improved Merkava. The Magach 7 is probably the closest equivalent to the M60 Super, and frankly the differences between the two are kinda negligible. Not to say that the Israelis copied US tech, but it's just that the general idea is so similar that I can't be bothered to tell the difference out of a lack of sufficient details on the M60 Super. Well, except that the Magach 7s are slower. Still, pretty nice complement for the Merkava IID. I warned you guys about that Patton love didn't I? Only the shape of the gun mantlet changes between both variants, and I don't know how substantial the increase is after the 7C used the angled gun mantlet layout.

I didn't quite get the first paragraph. Are you still talking there about the turret, or the hull?

 

 

Sabra 1

Spoiler

Israeli tanks:

- Sabra mk I (M321, M325)

 

Yes, I know the IDF doesn't use the Sabra. It's an export variant of the M60 used by the Turks as a general upgrade to their substantial amount of M60s. Anyway, the main selling point here is the gun: IMI's very own 120mm MG251 smoothbore. Using M321 APFSDS, there's not much that can really resist the Sabra's gun, and this is backed by a standard FCS with all the stuff one would expect. The mobility isn't that bad either, even if it's still not the fastest MBT. The problem is armor, which it lacks. Yes, I am fully aware that there's an instance where a Turkish Sabra survived the extremely powerful Kornet ATGM, but the liner was not going towards the crew compartment in the first place. Even a 2000mm penetration HEAT round wouldn't have gone through in that scenario. Still, that's a pretty nice glass cannon even if the Israelis didn't make it for themselves due to the Merkava.

Just a minor correction, the Sabra used by the Turks is the Mark 2, not 1.

 

 

Mark 3, Sabra 2-3

Spoiler

Israeli tanks:

- Merkava mk III (M321, M325, LAHAT)

- Sabra mk II (M322, M325)

- Sabra mk III (M322, M325)

 

This is arguably the biggest overhaul in Merkava development history. The composite armor probably improved here, but the hull is still shockingly weak going by the assumption of thinn. Turret's still as strong as ever though, so no complaints there. The FCS also improved quite considerably, probably to the point where it's among NATO's best. What's more noticeable however is the MG 251 smoothbore gun, firing M321 APFSDS that can easily penetrate Soviet tanks especially if hulldown tactics are used. There's also the LAHAT ATGM: a top attack tandem warhead ATGM that hits targets kilometers away with very high accuracy as well as usable in direct fire mode to shoot down unsuspecting helicopters. Some say the LAHAT could be fired from the Merkava mk II, but I can't find evidence in the form of FCS specs to say it's true. The turret finally gets a ready rack in the form of a revolving 5 round drum for the loader to grab shells from, so gone are rather slow reload speeds. And for mobility, one would expect sluggishness again. Dead wrong. The 1200 hp engine increases acceleration substantially over the mk II's 900 hp engine. And if that weren't enough, the suspension is really good. It's some sort of coilover sort of design, but instead of a shock, there seems to be yet another spring. For some reason this means the mk III can keep up with an M1A1 pretty nicely, and in long stretches it might even be faster. All this while keeping Merkava tricks mentioned before. It's just that huge an upgrade. Does it even need M322 APFSDS? I don't think so considering it also gets hunter-killer apparently. Or is that the IIIB? idk

 

Also as expected we get more Pattons. The Sabra mk II gets an upgrade with reactive armor of sorts, though it's not 100% clear whether it's NERA/ERA or even NERA/NxRA or whether it can stop Soviet monobloc. Also, mobility improved quite substantially and should only be slightly behind the M1A1 in theory. The FCS finally gets hunter-killer capabilities too. The gun is good as as always though, so some things never change. The mk III comes with the same warning systems found on the Merkava mk IV, and some better armor that may not even matter in this scenario. Getting a bit sick of the Pattons now. This is part of the reason I was reluctant to talk about Israeli tanks.

The Mark 3A, interestingly, did not have the world beating FCS that the Mark 3B had. It was very good and overall the same as you'd see on other NATO tanks, but certain aspects of it were considered aging by Elbit, the FCS manufacturer for the IDF. The Mark 3B definitely deserves that title though. It definitely had probably the best FCS in the world at the time (did I just use "definitely" and "probably" jointly? Likely indeed).

Uhm, lets see. The Mark 2 did have the LAHAT. There's a reason why the LAHAT was originally a 105mm round and only later got converted to a 120mm version. 

Slow reload times are not removed here, they're just prevented from occurring on this particular version. As I said, the Merkava 2, despite having shells in the hull, demonstrated a very healthy rate of fire. The Mark 3 now has 120mm shells, which are heavier than 105mm shells. Note; The Merkava 2 reached RoF levels that a typical loader on an M1A1/2 Abrams gets despite the difference in caliber thus difference in shell weight. The difference is explained by the different ergonomics which you noted. Weight balances it out basically.

Mark 3 can have somewhat similar levels of RoF to the Mark 2 thanks to its drum.

 

On the Sabra, the Mark 2 gets ERA on the hull front and NxRA armor on the turret. The important stuff, though, is that the Sabra gets an MG253 gun now, along with its new ammunition. 

Mark 3, as it was never produced and is just a prototype lying around in some base or IMI facility, can feature all kinds of stuff for the sake of marketing. Recently, it was offered to Thailand (or some other country?) with the Iron Fist APS. Better just drop this version altogether. 

 

 

Mark 3B/D

Spoiler

Israeli tanks:

- Merkava mk IIIB (M322, M325, LAHAT)

- Merkava mk IIID (M322, M325, LAHAT)

 

Same Merkava mk III, just DM43 tier APFSDS tacked on as well as the ability to lock onto targets while moving. What, you expected better armor? It's good enough as it is especially if you're one who follows thicc armor instead of thinn armor. But yes, the armor is better apparently, and entirely removable for ease of maintenance. Did I mention central air conditioning? Good AC is a necessity when operating in the arid deserts of Israel. Well it's not as necessary in Europe, but still. The IIID is the same thing except with better tracks and something similar to CROWS.

Slight confusion here. The Mark 3B only introduces an FCS as a key upgrade. The Mark 3D is the one that introduces better armor. Also, the entire armor is removable in the early Mark 3A version, not just an added feature on later tanks.

 

 

Skipped BR

Spoiler

Israeli tanks:
 

through special physics the idf managed to skip this somehow

It would be better, historically-wise and capability-wise to put the Mark 3B and 3D here, and up the Mark 3's BR as well. If that's still not suitable, the recently shown Mark 3M with the Trophy APS and slightly improved turret armor is definitely a good candidate to fill the spot.

 

 

Mark 4 and 4M.

Spoiler

Israeli tanks:

- Merkava mk IV (M338, M325, LAHAT)

- Merkava mk IVm Windbreaker (M338, M325, LAHAT)

 

This is the shining jewel of the IDF when it comes to tanks. At first glance it's easy to think this is like the Merkava mk III, but there are a few key differences. First is armor, which has been improved again and no one really knows how. The hull is practically junk for believers of the thinn, but very good for believers of the thicc, while both agree that the turret is very likely to be the best turret in NATO in terms of front turret armor, not to mention floor protection and roof protection versus those pesky RPGs. Mobility has been improved by some suspension improvements as well as the addition of the Leopard 2's V12 diesel, leading to most likely outmaneuvering every single MBT bar the Leclerc and similar. Not bad for a 65 ton "I'm you but stronger" version of the Gavin. For firepower M338 APFSDS and its performance comparable to DM53 is very suitable. The revolving drum acting as the tank's ready rack also now houses 10 rounds instead of 5, meaning faster reload speeds. The FCS is excellent too, with a battlefield management system, IR and radar sensors for detecting ATGMs if not laser rangefinders, and generally improved optics and all that. With the IVm, one can even use Trophy APS: the only battle tested hardkill APS that tracks incoming RPGs and ATGMs and launches a canister of EFPs at them. Upon getting close enough to the projectile, the EFP charges themselves are detonated, leading to multiple small liners tearing up the projectile and thus making it either crash into the tank without doing anything but annoying the crew or flat out detonation. The problem is that Trophy cannot intercept APFSDS, which is why it's not that big of a deal in actual tank combat. However, it's very effective in urban environments and in uncharted territory where some random ATGM crew may stalk.

 

And yes, that's where the Israelis stop. As much as LAHAT is a potentially great counter to the T-14 (well, if one can bypass the softkill portion of the APS), it's not so good with a such a brand new method of coordination or mobility to match up. However, Elbit is having a bit of fun trying out new things for the Merkava's FCS and warning systems, not to mention Iron Fist being able to reduce APFSDS penetration in tests even if it's not in production. Maybe there's gonna be a secret plan, who knows? This ends the Israeli line for now.

The hull improvement is very easily visible if you got the right material.

Pictures below:

Spoiler

uhQuGXD.png?1

 

DATTfRZ.png

 

11.jpg

 

Compare it with Mark 3:

Spoiler

israeli_tank.jpg

 

This still leaves a thin LFP as always, but the Mark 4 is definitely on the Thicc part now, whilst the Mark 1-3 are on the Thinn part.

The engine is not that of the Leopard 2. The Leo uses the 873 engine, whereas the Mark 4 uses the 883 engine. The difference is that the 883 is just much smaller. The savings in size is what allowed the IDF to design the armor profile better, and thus describe it as the 'first tank without compromises'.

 

Also, here's the catch. The line doesn't end here. The following 2 tiers of tanks that you've come up with consist of the M1A2 SEPv3, T-14, Type 10, and K2 PIP, and then 140mm and 130mm armed tanks. Now, on the Type 10 at least, I want to comment that the Mark 4 tank does have the ELAWS which detects laser emissions, so it can alert the crew when someone is pointing a laser at them. I assume that's what the Type 10 has, so that means it's fairly standard equipment.

The Merkava 4 can continue with the Barak tank. It is an improvement that includes a 2nd generation APS that will be capable of defeating APFSDS (fun fact, the Trophy originally could defeat APFSDS, but the army requested a version that doesn't, to improve the capabilities against ATGMs) - great protection increase, an HMD (Helmet Mounted Display) - great situational awareness increase, a hybrid electric engine - great mobility increase. What else? Nothing that would affect much the gameplay, or at all. There might be a very small chance of higher compartmentalization, perhaps an autoloader, but it's probably not going to happen. Anyway, it's far more of a real life capability improvement than what the PIP is for the K2, or the ECP1 is for the M1A2SEPv2, so I think it would be appropriate to continue the line with the Barak.

 

And in the final tier, although I really wish such fantasy guns won't be added and we're just left with the above as the final tier, there is also room for the Merkava 4 because it was planned to have a 140mm gun. Its turret was built to accept one without any redesign. And if that sounds odd, you better read up on who the Swiss partnered with for their 140mm project (it starts with "I" and ends with "MI"). But, again, I really don't want this to be in the game.

 

 

Edited by Mighty_Zuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Mark 1-2C, Magach 6B/C

 

I assume you used this document as a source for the Mark 1's FCS . It should, however, be noted, that the gunner's sight magnification is disputed. It is claimed to be either x8 or x12. 

Stabilization only didn't exist for the very earliest models, as they were not quite ready back then. They were, however, quickly retrofitted onto already built tanks.

Overall, Tal described the Mark 1 as having 'substantially' improved firepower over the M48 and M60, despite them using the same ammunition. He referred to a higher maximum range of engagement that the FCS permitted, so it's hard to say they are the same on this department. Probably has mostly to do with the sights.

The document also says a typical reload rate is 7 rounds per minute, while a trained crew can reach up to 12 per minute, meaning 5 seconds between each round, if they know in advance which round to load.

 

I used the same CIA source I used to find out that COTAC FCS has no dynamic lead, but due to the date it only covers the Merkava mk I as the mk II was apparently still in prototype phase at the time. The stabilization thing is still something to mention, though I'll have to say it was mostly standard now. Also might have overestimated the actual distance between the loader and the rack. Might be because the tank looks bigger on the inside, at least through my eyes.

 

Mark 2D, Magach 7A/C

  Reveal hidden contents

Israeli tanks:

- Merkava mk IID (M426, M157/3)

- Magach 7A (M413, M157/3)

- Magach 7C (M413, M157/3)

 

Finally, some composite armor that isn't just spaced steel plates. This adds quite a substantial amount of SC and KE protection especially for the turret, which now boasts the thickest front side armor of any MBT in terms of LoS even if the other part of the side armor is just RHA. The effectiveness on the other hand, is not a pretty story and is quite a heated debate topic. Think of it like a bunch of nerds talking about a random girl with an average physique. Some argue she thicc, some argue she thinn. I argue the latter. This is a pretty crucial debate topic since this extends to all composite Merkavas. For now I shall argue thinn due to comfort, but still good enough for 3BM-26 in theory. Not too bad. The M68 is now equipped with M426 APFSDS: the strongest Israeli 105mm APFSDS. Yes, I know there was M413 that is an analogue to M833, but the IID just does not have the mobility for this. It needs that M426 to compete. And compete it still does with its solid FCS and unbeatable hulldown strategy. The sides also have composite armor as indicated by the rivets. Useless against large caliber APFSDS, but still nice to have in urban areas.

 

Oh and we get more Magachs to accompany the newly improved Merkava. The Magach 7 is probably the closest equivalent to the M60 Super, and frankly the differences between the two are kinda negligible. Not to say that the Israelis copied US tech, but it's just that the general idea is so similar that I can't be bothered to tell the difference out of a lack of sufficient details on the M60 Super. Well, except that the Magach 7s are slower. Still, pretty nice complement for the Merkava IID. I warned you guys about that Patton love didn't I? Only the shape of the gun mantlet changes between both variants, and I don't know how substantial the increase is after the 7C used the angled gun mantlet layout.

I didn't quite get the first paragraph. Are you still talking there about the turret, or the hull?

 

Both when it comes to actual effectiveness. It's a given since even to this day the IDF will not disclose the exact specs of their composite armor. The thicc vs thinn part is all hull though. The turret is unmistakably thicc, and very much so.

 

Sabra 1

 

Just a minor correction, the Sabra used by the Turks is the Mark 2, not 1.

 

doki

 

Mark 3, Sabra 2-3

  Reveal hidden contents

Israeli tanks:

- Merkava mk III (M321, M325, LAHAT)

- Sabra mk II (M322, M325)

- Sabra mk III (M322, M325)

 

This is arguably the biggest overhaul in Merkava development history. The composite armor probably improved here, but the hull is still shockingly weak going by the assumption of thinn. Turret's still as strong as ever though, so no complaints there. The FCS also improved quite considerably, probably to the point where it's among NATO's best. What's more noticeable however is the MG 251 smoothbore gun, firing M321 APFSDS that can easily penetrate Soviet tanks especially if hulldown tactics are used. There's also the LAHAT ATGM: a top attack tandem warhead ATGM that hits targets kilometers away with very high accuracy as well as usable in direct fire mode to shoot down unsuspecting helicopters. Some say the LAHAT could be fired from the Merkava mk II, but I can't find evidence in the form of FCS specs to say it's true. The turret finally gets a ready rack in the form of a revolving 5 round drum for the loader to grab shells from, so gone are rather slow reload speeds. And for mobility, one would expect sluggishness again. Dead wrong. The 1200 hp engine increases acceleration substantially over the mk II's 900 hp engine. And if that weren't enough, the suspension is really good. It's some sort of coilover sort of design, but instead of a shock, there seems to be yet another spring. For some reason this means the mk III can keep up with an M1A1 pretty nicely, and in long stretches it might even be faster. All this while keeping Merkava tricks mentioned before. It's just that huge an upgrade. Does it even need M322 APFSDS? I don't think so considering it also gets hunter-killer apparently. Or is that the IIIB? idk

 

Also as expected we get more Pattons. The Sabra mk II gets an upgrade with reactive armor of sorts, though it's not 100% clear whether it's NERA/ERA or even NERA/NxRA or whether it can stop Soviet monobloc. Also, mobility improved quite substantially and should only be slightly behind the M1A1 in theory. The FCS finally gets hunter-killer capabilities too. The gun is good as as always though, so some things never change. The mk III comes with the same warning systems found on the Merkava mk IV, and some better armor that may not even matter in this scenario. Getting a bit sick of the Pattons now. This is part of the reason I was reluctant to talk about Israeli tanks.

The Mark 3A, interestingly, did not have the world beating FCS that the Mark 3B had. It was very good and overall the same as you'd see on other NATO tanks, but certain aspects of it were considered aging by Elbit, the FCS manufacturer for the IDF. The Mark 3B definitely deserves that title though. It definitely had probably the best FCS in the world at the time (did I just use "definitely" and "probably" jointly? Likely indeed).

Uhm, lets see. The Mark 2 did have the LAHAT. There's a reason why the LAHAT was originally a 105mm round and only later got converted to a 120mm version. 

Slow reload times are not removed here, they're just prevented from occurring on this particular version. As I said, the Merkava 2, despite having shells in the hull, demonstrated a very healthy rate of fire. The Mark 3 now has 120mm shells, which are heavier than 105mm shells. Note; The Merkava 2 reached RoF levels that a typical loader on an M1A1/2 Abrams gets despite the difference in caliber thus difference in shell weight. The difference is explained by the different ergonomics which you noted. Weight balances it out basically.

Mark 3 can have somewhat similar levels of RoF to the Mark 2 thanks to its drum.

 

What I mentioned for the mk III was that its FCS was on the same level as what the rest of NATO would have. As in, not falling behind the US and Germany that typically have good FCS. The IIIB I did mention as having this ability to lock onto targets, which is probably the biggest jump the new FCS offered. I did not know the LAHAT was meant to be used by the mk II though. I blame a lack of FCS knowledge as that's usually the primary factor in being able to use ATGMs. Still not going to put it on the mk II as a top attack ATGM like that is really hard to balance with opposition so basic. I usually don't mention any difference in reload speed most of the time anyway, because as you said there's not too big a difference between loading a 105mm or 120mm shell. Maybe a second behind and decreased consistency for the greener loaders, but not too big a difference.

 

On the Sabra, the Mark 2 gets ERA on the hull front and NxRA armor on the turret. The important stuff, though, is that the Sabra gets an MG253 gun now, along with its new ammunition. 

Mark 3, as it was never produced and is just a prototype lying around in some base or IMI facility, can feature all kinds of stuff for the sake of marketing. Recently, it was offered to Thailand (or some other country?) with the Iron Fist APS. Better just drop this version altogether. 

 

Damn I forgot the MG253. The Merkava mk IV also has it without a single doubt. Still keeping that variant though, since it doesn't seem to be completely useless thanks to hunter-killer that the Merkava mk III doesn't get until later. It's the whole FCS vs actual frontline capability that would be seen in the US part with the M1 and M60A3 TTS duo except both respective tanks get 120mms.

 

Mark 3B/D

  Reveal hidden contents

Israeli tanks:

- Merkava mk IIIB (M322, M325, LAHAT)

- Merkava mk IIID (M322, M325, LAHAT)

 

Same Merkava mk III, just DM43 tier APFSDS tacked on as well as the ability to lock onto targets while moving. What, you expected better armor? It's good enough as it is especially if you're one who follows thicc armor instead of thinn armor. But yes, the armor is better apparently, and entirely removable for ease of maintenance. Did I mention central air conditioning? Good AC is a necessity when operating in the arid deserts of Israel. Well it's not as necessary in Europe, but still. The IIID is the same thing except with better tracks and something similar to CROWS.

Slight confusion here. The Mark 3B only introduces an FCS as a key upgrade. The Mark 3D is the one that introduces better armor. Also, the entire armor is removable in the early Mark 3A version, not just an added feature on later tanks.

 

ez fix

 

Skipped BR

  Reveal hidden contents

Israeli tanks:
 

through special physics the idf managed to skip this somehow

It would be better, historically-wise and capability-wise to put the Mark 3B and 3D here, and up the Mark 3's BR as well. If that's still not suitable, the recently shown Mark 3M with the Trophy APS and slightly improved turret armor is definitely a good candidate to fill the spot.

 

Mk IIIm it is.

 

Mark 4 and 4M.

  Reveal hidden contents

Israeli tanks:

- Merkava mk IV (M338, M325, LAHAT)

- Merkava mk IVm Windbreaker (M338, M325, LAHAT)

 

This is the shining jewel of the IDF when it comes to tanks. At first glance it's easy to think this is like the Merkava mk III, but there are a few key differences. First is armor, which has been improved again and no one really knows how. The hull is practically junk for believers of the thinn, but very good for believers of the thicc, while both agree that the turret is very likely to be the best turret in NATO in terms of front turret armor, not to mention floor protection and roof protection versus those pesky RPGs. Mobility has been improved by some suspension improvements as well as the addition of the Leopard 2's V12 diesel, leading to most likely outmaneuvering every single MBT bar the Leclerc and similar. Not bad for a 65 ton "I'm you but stronger" version of the Gavin. For firepower M338 APFSDS and its performance comparable to DM53 is very suitable. The revolving drum acting as the tank's ready rack also now houses 10 rounds instead of 5, meaning faster reload speeds. The FCS is excellent too, with a battlefield management system, IR and radar sensors for detecting ATGMs if not laser rangefinders, and generally improved optics and all that. With the IVm, one can even use Trophy APS: the only battle tested hardkill APS that tracks incoming RPGs and ATGMs and launches a canister of EFPs at them. Upon getting close enough to the projectile, the EFP charges themselves are detonated, leading to multiple small liners tearing up the projectile and thus making it either crash into the tank without doing anything but annoying the crew or flat out detonation. The problem is that Trophy cannot intercept APFSDS, which is why it's not that big of a deal in actual tank combat. However, it's very effective in urban environments and in uncharted territory where some random ATGM crew may stalk.

 

And yes, that's where the Israelis stop. As much as LAHAT is a potentially great counter to the T-14 (well, if one can bypass the softkill portion of the APS), it's not so good with a such a brand new method of coordination or mobility to match up. However, Elbit is having a bit of fun trying out new things for the Merkava's FCS and warning systems, not to mention Iron Fist being able to reduce APFSDS penetration in tests even if it's not in production. Maybe there's gonna be a secret plan, who knows? This ends the Israeli line for now.

The hull improvement is very easily visible if you got the right material.

Pictures below:

  Reveal hidden contents

uhQuGXD.png?1

 

DATTfRZ.png

 

11.jpg

 

Compare it with Mark 3:

  Reveal hidden contents

israeli_tank.jpg

 

This still leaves a thin LFP as always, but the Mark 4 is definitely on the Thicc part now, whilst the Mark 1-3 are on the Thinn part.

The engine is not that of the Leopard 2. The Leo uses the 873 engine, whereas the Mark 4 uses the 883 engine. The difference is that the 883 is just much smaller. The savings in size is what allowed the IDF to design the armor profile better, and thus describe it as the 'first tank without compromises'.

 

Yeah, I might have looked at mk III armor instead of mk IV. The LFP being weak on the other hand? That's typical for the UFP angle the Merkava uses. All tanks with a UFP angle under 80 degrees from vertical follows that rule, and the LFP exposure depends on how far down the composite block can go. Not much overlap for the Merkava though.

 

Also, here's the catch. The line doesn't end here. The following 2 tiers of tanks that you've come up with consist of the M1A2 SEPv3, T-14, Type 10, and K2 PIP, and then 140mm and 130mm armed tanks. Now, on the Type 10 at least, I want to comment that the Mark 4 tank does have the ELAWS which detects laser emissions, so it can alert the crew when someone is pointing a laser at them. I assume that's what the Type 10 has, so that means it's fairly standard equipment.

The Merkava 4 can continue with the Barak tank. It is an improvement that includes a 2nd generation APS that will be capable of defeating APFSDS (fun fact, the Trophy originally could defeat APFSDS, but the army requested a version that doesn't, to improve the capabilities against ATGMs) - great protection increase, an HMD (Helmet Mounted Display) - great situational awareness increase, a hybrid electric engine - great mobility increase. What else? Nothing that would affect much the gameplay, or at all. There might be a very small chance of higher compartmentalization, perhaps an autoloader, but it's probably not going to happen. Anyway, it's far more of a real life capability improvement than what the PIP is for the K2, or the ECP1 is for the M1A2SEPv2, so I think it would be appropriate to continue the line with the Barak.

 

Well since the K2 PIP is just a list of desirables, the Barak gets in and laughs at the T-14 using LAHATs after all. The Barak has way more tech that's not exactly close enough to mass production though, even more so than the XLR and even the K2 PIP.

 

And in the final tier, although I really wish such fantasy guns won't be added and we're just left with the above as the final tier, there is also room for the Merkava 4 because it was planned to have a 140mm gun. Its turret was built to accept one without any redesign. And if that sounds odd, you better read up on who the Swiss partnered with for their 140mm project (it starts with "I" and ends with "MI"). But, again, I really don't want this to be in the game.

 

I skimmed across this, but at that moment I didn't feel like saying "her is merkuv + 140mm all gud", since that's basically all NATO + allies in a nutshell. The Soviets were way more crazy with their doom gun designs.

 

gonna get to editing this bad boy thx zukboi

Edited by Nope
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so now that everything's sorted out, there's the question of what to do with the LAHAT. It's such an iconic piece of equipment even when not talking specifically about the Merkavas, by virtue of it being quite a revolutionary weapon for its time, and definitely the best in its category for a long time as the only competition was Soviet missiles, and they were always quite far behind in missile tech. Yet, there's not a single combat record of using that weapon. Even more, it's no longer a standard issue ammo, for quite a while. I don't think there's any Merkava out there driving around with a LAHAT in its rack. Especially Mark 4 tanks. But, you know, if we go for a "what if" situation then it's probably not a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Ok so now that everything's sorted out, there's the question of what to do with the LAHAT. It's such an iconic piece of equipment even when not talking specifically about the Merkavas, by virtue of it being quite a revolutionary weapon for its time, and definitely the best in its category for a long time as the only competition was Soviet missiles, and they were always quite far behind in missile tech. Yet, there's not a single combat record of using that weapon. Even more, it's no longer a standard issue ammo, for quite a while. I don't think there's any Merkava out there driving around with a LAHAT in its rack. Especially Mark 4 tanks. But, you know, if we go for a "what if" situation then it's probably not a bad idea.

 

For the sake of balance, I'm gonna put it with the mk III at the very least. If that's too much it's probably going to be mk IV only. The LAHAT is just so potent a weapon that putting it on say, the mk II will result in a very difficult configuration to balance. The Barak on the other hand can very well use the LAHAT. In fact when it comes to a T-14, it's encouraged since Afghanit does not shoot upwards.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay well I think we're all set. What's best is that there's enough combat vehicles in the IDF to fill up a lot of spots in all categories for the modern era. Use it with my suggested country unlocking system where you unlock a certain tier on another country to unlock Israel, and you have a very well established candidate for the next country for tank battles. 

 

By the way, had Snail ever said anything about the requests for an international tree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nope said:

 

Ukrainian stuff on the other hand is something I really need to get my head around ever since the rumors that the BM Oplot has basically no armor.

 

Well that would explain all the 'sploded pictures that came out of the civil war

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LULZ said:

 

Well that would explain all the 'sploded pictures that came out of the civil war

No Oplots were used in the war AFAIK, and neither have they actually entered service. Only recently the public was informed that the Oplot-M MAY enter service in some numbers, but it's too soon yet.

 

 

And to Tovarish I say, the Nozh ERA just works. Lots of very detailed info is out there to say it isnt, but somehow it just works. At least to some extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

And to Tovarish I say, the Nozh ERA just works. Lots of very detailed info is out there to say it isnt, but somehow it just works. At least to some extent.

 

It works, but not exactly in the refined way some may think. It's really more among the lines of what the TF 2 engineer said about what happens when a gun doesn't work, only with explosives.

 

But hey, beats working on China. I mean I should since that's how one gives some diversity in Warsaw, but finding precise enough details even to my standards is pretty annoying. Kinda sad too, as I kinda like the Type 99A2 and the general branching off from Soviet design into something more unique. Maybe India is next because just looking at the Arjun mk I is just as adorable as Ride to Hell Retribution 1%.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2018 at 3:26 AM, Nope said:

Israeli tanks:

- Merkava mk IV Barak (M338, M325, LAHAT)

 

The French went on a light tech and strategy overhaul to counter the T-14. The Americans are betting on the SEP V3 somehow being able to push back the T-14 conventionally. The Israelis? Well they go ham on tech. One of them is making the tank a hybrid. No, the IDF are not going eco, they are improving lower end torque with an electric engine and combined with even the standard 27.4L V-12 mobility would increase considerably. This places the mobility at Leclerc tier if all things go well enough. The armor would also be improved, but the extent is unknown even to composite standards. Ammo sadly doesn't change much, or at least I haven't heard of newer ammo than M338. Who knows, maybe the IDF is confident with M338. And this is rather small stuff compared to the next steps. One of them is the introduction of a new hardkill APS that can lower APFSDS penetration just like the experimental Iron Fist. Not sure about flipping the round over reliably, but even a slight nudge can lower penetration by 10%. The crew also get special helmets with displays just like what pilots get. This improves crew dynamics quite a bit. One of the tech Elbit even experiments with is basically EO-DAS for tanks. EO-DAS, found on the F-35, is advanced enough so that one can essentially look through the vehicle itself, get accurate data on enemies and thus allow a never before seen level of situational awareness. When on the F-35, that kind of tech makes the pilot seemingly omniscient to enemy pilots. On a tank the effect is not as useful, but that's still quite useful indeed. Not sure whether this is considered, but it's one of the things Elbit shilled a few times. There's also talk about isolating the ammo rack (finally) and even a proper autoloader instead of a revolving drum serving as a ready rack. What the Barak could do versus a T-14 best though is fire LAHATs. Since Afghanit hardkill cannot hit top attack ATGMs, only softkill is a problem. Sadly LAHAT is still dependent on the standard laser homing guidance method, so it might veer off course. However, with the Barak and its massive improvements in FCS and general electronics, the IDF crew will be one step ahead of the T-14. It sounds amazing, but the biggest problem is that out of all theoretical upgrade packages here, this is the most theoretical of them all. It almost sounds too perfect. Still, if Elbit delivers in terms of electronics, everything should go smoothly. Oh, and if the LAHAT is indeed not going to be bothered by the softkill APS.

 

Just wanted to say that it's not as experimental as you may think. The finished product is supposed to enter service by the end of 2020. That means it should be finished and properly tested by the the middle to end of next year, because the production rate stands at 30 vehicle - i.e a battalion per year, and they don't convert a unit until they do the whole battalion.

Elbit's IronVision was tested operationally in April last year, that's a year ago. So that tech's ready. Not surprising considering Elbit developed the JHMCS for the F-35 so they have a strong basis that requires only few changes. 

 

And the Iron Fist... Well a certain very involved guy (I think VP of IMI) said a 7° inclination is enough to reduce the penetration by a whopping 90%. That's only logical if we look at the T-14. It uses the same concept to intercept APFSDS as the Iron Fist does - tilt and yaw the rod and it's ineffective. The turret has almost no armor to speak of, but it's considered enough to take the hit of a tilted rod, which definitely confirms a 90% reduction right there. And that was for a 7° inclination. Video footage showed much greater inclination of ~45°, which might push that number a bit. 

 

I'll ask Bronezhilet if he can use his sim to test it.

Edited by Mighty_Zuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merkava would be cool in game, one of the only vehicles with the possibility of being immune to cannon fire from planes

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LULZ said:

Merkava would be cool in game, one of the only vehicles with the possibility of being immune to cannon fire from planes

 

That would probably be starting from the IIC, as that has some improved roof armor. However, I don't really want the Merkava in-game for now because of its front engine layout. Gaijin still struggles with module damage enough, hence more conventional rear engine tanks are better in this case. Otherwise one will have to deal with the composite module or spaced armor, the fuel tanks, the engine and the transmission plus a somewhat thick backing plate separating the crew from the engine compartment.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Nope said:

 

Maybe India is next because just looking at the Arjun mk I is just as adorable as Ride to Hell Retribution 1%.

 

Arjun looks like a deformed Leo 2 clone. Plus its Indian so it cant be that good can it

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, LULZ said:

 

Arjun looks like a deformed Leo 2 clone. Plus its Indian so it cant be that good can it

 

Let's just say that India should stick to their T-90Ses longer. The only question is how actually good the composite actually is. If it's strangely too good India may not make the list. The Arjun mk II is an improvement, but still is not worth it. Because of the Arjun and other failed projects the DRDO decided to leave tank design to corporations without intruding too much.

  • Like 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nope said:

 

That would probably be starting from the IIC, as that has some improved roof armor. However, I don't really want the Merkava in-game for now because of its front engine layout. Gaijin still struggles with module damage enough, hence more conventional rear engine tanks are better in this case. Otherwise one will have to deal with the composite module or spaced armor, the fuel tanks, the engine and the transmission plus a somewhat thick backing plate separating the crew from the engine compartment.

You mean the whole fire thing? It just feels like the fire damage does way too much damage even at top tiers, despite the powerpack usually being sealed away, so a fire would only stay there and not harm anything else for a long while. Or the frequency at which engines catch fire. About at the time of the Mark 1, maybe even earlier, fuel tanks should be safe enough to not only to stop worrying about them catching fire, but using them as shields because they're already safe. That's something they couldn't model on the Kpz-70 for example, which suffers quite a lot because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

You mean the whole fire thing? It just feels like the fire damage does way too much damage even at top tiers, despite the powerpack usually being sealed away, so a fire would only stay there and not harm anything else for a long while. Or the frequency at which engines catch fire. About at the time of the Mark 1, maybe even earlier, fuel tanks should be safe enough to not only to stop worrying about them catching fire, but using them as shields because they're already safe. That's something they couldn't model on the Kpz-70 for example, which suffers quite a lot because of it.

 

It's more about modules eating up way too much. There's already reports of the Leopard 2K in-game stopping rather strong APFSDS with its fuel tanks. I mean fuel tanks do add armor, but not that much armor given the 2K's thin RHA plates. Or sometimes modules just don't seem to stop much as people do talk about the composite modules in-game sometimes not working, at least when they were first introduced. This would also mean that the armor of the Merkavas could fluctuate rather heavily depending on whether Gaijin broke DMs or not.

 

i mean the community already screams russian bias, but the fluctuation of effective armor on israeli merkavas would just have strange reactions from the community

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the Leopard 2A5 did include a reinforced UFP.

 

Also, I had a talk once with someone who was commander on almost the entire lineage of Leopards. On the 2A5, there was this hole in the turret. I don't really know what it was for (It might have been for loading), but it was seen as a serious issue, as hand grenades could be tossed in.

 

Krauss-Maffei apparently came to our aid, and created a piece of armor that could be used to fill the gap. The armour used, which was of the same nature as the appliqué armor on the front of the turret, was so secret that nobody was allowed to enter the hangar in which it was applied to the tank. Only the workers from Krauss were allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, LordMustang said:

I believe the Leopard 2A5 did include a reinforced UFP.

 

Also, I had a talk once with someone who was commander on almost the entire lineage of Leopards. On the 2A5, there was this hole in the turret. I don't really know what it was for (It might have been for loading), but it was seen as a serious issue, as hand grenades could be tossed in.

 

Krauss-Maffei apparently came to our aid, and created a piece of armor that could be used to fill the gap. The armour used, which was of the same nature as the appliqué armor on the front of the turret, was so secret that nobody was allowed to enter the hangar in which it was applied to the tank. Only the workers from Krauss were allowed.

imagine what a KV-2's HE shell would do to that hole =)

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id actually like to correct you on something.

 

the T72B mod 84 ( not 83) is Early transitional model as you describe. The T72B just before kontact 1, however it does not have the same FCS as the T-72A.  While some sources say it was not standard yet, other say mod 84 already has the new sighting complex. Take T72B mod 84 in steel beasts. It already has the new system. Or did they make a boo boo?

 

 

 

From what it see,s it had the Updated 1A40-1 sighting complex that provides the Lead needed to be applied manually like the T-72B mod 1985. especially since Mod 84s eventually got updated to Mod 85 standards. All it took was the application of Kontact 1.

 

 

 

Edited by kev2go
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Tovarish. Got a couple questions.

 

Is FCS modeled in any way in the game? If it is, how is it modeled? 

 

I've only recently started playing and barely got to the M10 and M4 on the French tech tree, so I have no idea how FCS will be like later in the game.

 

Second, why not expand your list to include other types of vehicles? IFVs and ATGM vehicles have a place in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Hey Tovarish. Got a couple questions.

 

Is FCS modeled in any way in the game? If it is, how is it modeled? 

 

I've only recently started playing and barely got to the M10 and M4 on the French tech tree, so I have no idea how FCS will be like later in the game.

 

FCS isn't modelled into the game (at least for now), even on modern tanks.

All you can do is ranging (up to a certain distance depending on the type of rangefinder) and then adjust the sight for the measured range.

You have to take in account lead, elevation and cant manually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Hey Tovarish. Got a couple questions.

 

Is FCS modeled in any way in the game? If it is, how is it modeled? 

 

I've only recently started playing and barely got to the M10 and M4 on the French tech tree, so I have no idea how FCS will be like later in the game.

 

Second, why not expand your list to include other types of vehicles? IFVs and ATGM vehicles have a place in the game.

 

FCS is mostly limited to a rangefinder at best that gives range after a few seconds of pressing the corresponding key. There's also stabilization later on.

 

Also, lighter vehicles would require a thread entirely dedicated to them, and the criteria would just be strange especially for IFVs. Don't get me wrong, autocannons are meant to take out other IFVs to some extent, but there's many factors. For light tanks, assault guns and tank destroyers, these essentially delete any IFV in existence with the exception of anything following the same armor philosophy as the BMPT or Namer. They are meant to provide supporting fire to light convoys through taking out bunkers and lower end MBTs.  A Centauro for instance would spell death for any IFV out there except the BMPT and Namer, and so vehicle class comparisons are useless. There's equally the infantry to take into account, as part of the IFV role is to drop off infantry in places that they wouldn't reach themselves due to the abundance of small arms fire. That would mean going over the infantry loadout and how much infantry can be carried. And even if the IFV doesn't carry infantry such as the BMPT, it doesn't mean it's a bad IFV given that the BMPT is excellent at suppressing infantry in urban environments with a crapload of RPGs and so would allow weaker IFVs such as the BMP-2 to drop off their troops and even support them without being in serious danger. These light vehicles are so attached to other vehicles and men that talking about them might result in accidentally detailing more units than normal. The exact same story applies to ground attack aircraft such as the A-10 or bombers of varying sizes. In that case their performance is more focused on enemy logistics and so talking about them would require talking about logistics. Meanwhile fighters are generally expected to take out aerial units, making comparison easier.

 

no i am not making a thread on fighter comparisons because i am not good enough with aircraft specs

Edited by Nope
  • Like 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...