It is effectively above 520mm and definitely exceed said value.
And those have faster reload.
I suggest you to read carefully.
My comparison was between Mk4s and Mk3s.
M1A1 indeed doesn’t have a commander’s sight, but that doesn’t offset all the pros it has over Mk3.
I suggest you to read carefully, my comparison was between Mk4s and Mk3s
You’re the one who brought up the M1A1, and comparing the Merkava Mk.4 and Mk.3 is idiotic as one is a direct evolution of another and would inheritably be better lmao. Just because the Merkava Mk.4 received the 5 second reload doesn’t mean the Mk.3 should as well, reload for the most part is a balancing factor.
It is effectively above 520mm and definitely exceed said value
Yeah bro, that additional 10mm of penetrations is going to be game changing, and especially when compared to the 600mm~ of penetration the Mk.3 has!!! Let’s forget about all the unique features present on the Mk.3 over most MBTs like the LWS, crew layout, sight magnification and survivability.
And those have faster reload
I wasn’t talking about the reload of the Challenger 2s but the horrible shell it gets, which is inferior to M322. M322 also produces more spalling than most kinetic penetrators in-game and I mean in the entire game, stop coping and admit that the Merkava Mk.3 is good for 11.3.
Just said Mk4 is actually more competitive at it’s BR because of stuff like better mobility, optics and whatnot. You read it wrong and thought I was talking about M1A1.
Mk3 definitely needed that reload buff more than M1A1, which is the whole point of this topic.
Well, it’s only Japanese tanks and Swedish T-80U that doesn’t reach your specified value. Try something better.
I already listed LWS as it’s pro, which is sadly less and less useful higher up you go.
Crew layout is pretty similar to other tanks, with 3 crew in the turret.
It’s optics at 5 - 12x are nothing to write home about at 11.3.
Survivability looks to be on par with other western tanks, your anecdotes aren’t an argument here.
Do you have a source or is it yet another anecdote of yours ?
Spalling is directly influenced by shell’s penetration value, it doesn’t take weight of the shell into consideration.
Just said Mk4 is actually more competitive at it’s BR because of stuff like better mobility, optics and whatnot. You read it wrong and thought I was talking about M1A1
Firstly, the Merkava Mk.4 isn’t competitive at 11.7/12.0, I hated playing it and the general experience is incredibly mediocre and barely bearable - the same can’t be said for the Merkava Mk.3 as the BR placement is much more forgiving and you get a lot more down tiers making life generally easier.
You started the debate with comparing the M1A1 to the Merkava Mk.3 and why it should receive a reload buff, I never at any point brought up the M1A1 until you did - you’re also comparing potato’s to tomato’s, the Merkava Mk.3 and M1A1 play entirely differently and have their own pros and cons, both are balanced at 11.3 and fulfil different objectives.
Mk3 definitely needed that reload buff more than M1A1, which is the whole point of this topic
The M1A1 never received a reload buff, that was the reload it had for the longest amount of time iirc, not every tank needs a reload buff and if you continue to push this agenda, we’ll eventually have tanks like the Ariete with a reload of 2 seconds - if you want a buff so badly, buff different aspects of the vehicle other than the reload.
Crew layout is pretty similar to other tanks, with 3 crew in the turret
The crew layout of the Merkava series of vehicles are significantly different when compared to other Western MBTs, you could argue the T-34 has a similar crew layout as the M1A2 if you’re going to be this vague.
The crew layout of the Merkava Mk.3 makes it so you have the ability to tank a shot and return fire, most NATO tanks can’t do this and especially when this upcoming update is released - the M1 is receiving a massive nerf.
The Merkava is funnily enough yet to receive a detailed damage model unlike the M1s and Leopards, if you want a buff so badly you should also accept a nerf in some aspects and that being in the damage model.
Do you have a source or is it yet another anecdote of yours?
The in-game mass of M322 is 5.6kg, weight of a shell is used as a multiplier for spalling and this would make M322 one of the more heavier kinetic penetrators of War Thunder, for example L27A1 weighs around 4.3kg and DM53 around 5kg.
Nearly all APFSDS in-game don’t exceed a weight of 5.5kg with the exception, of cause being the Israeli M322 meaning you’re more likely to one shot tanks in-game.
If you said the Merkava Mk.4 was bad then I can probably agree, the Merkava Mk.3 however is perfectly fine
Wildest thing ive read today lmao. It plays as M1A2 without DU turret armor two BR steps lower. It’s objectively overpowered at 11.3 considering Leclerc and Ariete AMV are both 12.0 (and balanced there)
M1A1 was buffed with the other 120mm M1s. I specifically remember this because it essentially made the IPM1 pointless since the M1A1 is the same BR.
Then move the M1A1 reload to 6 seconds
Wildest thing ive read today lmao. It plays as M1A2 without DU turret armor two BR steps lower. It’s objectively overpowered at 11.3 considering Leclerc and Ariete AMV are both 12.0
You’re genuinely delusional if you think the M1A1 is on par with the Leclerc, you can argue its performance is equivalent to the Arietes but the Leclerc? Yeah, nice joke.
The M1A1 shouldn’t go to 12.0 anyways, what type of suggestion is that lmao
Thanks for expressing your opinion, still doesn’t change anything when you compare Mk3 and M1A1.
All 120mm M1s had 6s reload until recently, where it got pushed down to 5s and M1A1 was also affected. IPM1 had 5s reload though.
So yeah, they buffed one of the strongest 11.3s in the game.
Everyone will get those turret baskets eventually.
Mk3 is in a need of a better reload to compete with M1A1.
Again, do you have a source on this as what you said here definitely isn’t one.
Long-rod darts don’t use mass of a shell in the spalling calculation.
Never said it was, it’s not a 2 BR step difference better though
Never said it should. It should go to 11.7, which makes it OP at its current BR.
All 120mm M1s had 6s reload until recently, where it got pushed down to 5s and M1A1 was also affected. IPM1 had 5s reload though
That was 2 years ago like I mentioned prior, that isn’t something recent whatsoever and doesn’t need to be brought up, it’s like saying Sweden was a recent introduction since Viking Fury was implemented in 2020.
Everyone will get those turret baskets eventually
They modelled the turret basket as the entire horizontal drive, some vehicles have this taking less and/or more room than the M1, the M1A1 is more of a severe case since if you shoot quite literally anywhere and penetrate, it will cause something to fail.
The Merkava Mk.3 doesn’t have this detailed damage model in-game yet, that’s what matters, not what will come in the future but what’s currently present in-game.
Again, do you have a source on this as what you said here definitely isn’t one
Weight is a direct contribution to kinetic energy, more energy is required to propel something heavier like M322 at the velocity of 1705 m/s than something like 3BM42 at the velocity of 1700 m/s. This in turn increases penetration and spalling of said kinetic penetrator.
Whilst War Thunder may not specialise in weight entirely, other modifiers like kinetic energy is definitely a factor, like said prior takes weight into account. Spalling is influenced by residual kinetic energy, shown in the video you posted and higher energy means more post pen affect - basic maths.
Thanks for proving me right lmao
Yeah, let’s make the M1A1 one step below 12.0 because it’s that good of a vehicle! All this shows is skill issue since the M1 is usually a very squishy and easy tank to kill for me, if you’re struggling with it then something may have to be re-evaluated.
This is genuinely the most amount of coping I’ve seen in a while, and I thought UK mains like myself coped a lot about the Challenger 2s but this is some new record honestly
It was published on Dec 21, 2023 so it’s more a year and few months. This is definitely recent considering M1A1 was added in March of 2019.
Two long-rod darts with the same penetration value will spall the same, regardless if they weigh 5 or 6kg, as the game ignores the mass part and solely focuses on penetration.
Spalling is influenced by residual penetration left as shown in the video.
Just because your round weighs more, doesn’t mean it will have more spalling than another round with the same or more pen amount.
It was published on Dec 21, 2023 so it’s more a year and few months. This is definitely recent considering M1A1 was added in March of 2019
Yeah because 442 days since the buff was a short while ago, you must honestly be 80 years old or some prehistoric fossil to believe this was a short while ago - both the additional of the M1A1 and the reload buff was a while ago and especially when you look at how long War Thunder has been about.
Two long-rod darts with the same penetration value will spall the same, regardless if they weigh 5 or 6kg, as the game ignores the mass part and solely focuses on penetration
Final boss of not reading, weight does matter as it’s taken into account for residual kinetic energy and the equation for kinetic energy is KE = 1/2MV^2 which last time I checked included weight - M standing for mass and V standing for velocity.
Just because your round weighs more, doesn’t mean it will have more spalling than another round with the same or more pen amount
Yes because the impact of spalling by weight can be negligible depending on a plethora of things like the angle of impact and thickness, velocity and composition. Residual penetration is directly impacted by weight and velocity.
This doesn’t change the fact that M322 is amongst one of the best APFSDS in-game and it’s found on a 11.3 platform, which is 2 steps below top tier for ground.
Please give me whatever copium substance you’re on, whatever it is must be STRONG for you to be this ignorant
Higher velocity and mass will give you better penetration, but if your round is penetrating 600mm of armor it will spall the same as other round with the same penetration, regardless of it’s weight and velocity.
Meaning that velocity and mass are already accounted for, so to judge the spalling only thing you need to look at are the penetration numbers.
It also is worse than a round M1A1 fires while also having a longer reload. Very small first stage stowage is also a problem, as after five rounds your reload will increase even further.
I honestly can’t be asked to continuously argue with someone so narrow minded so this is going to be my final response.
It also is worse than a round M1A1 fires while also having a longer reload
Penetration only matters to a certain extent, M829A1 also is significantly slower than M322 having a velocity of 1575 m/s compared to M322s 1705 m/s - the penetration difference is also 9mm of RHA, they’re on par and M322 to a extent is even superior.
Higher velocity and mass will give you better penetration, but if your round is penetrating 600mm of armor it will spall the same as other round with the same penetration, regardless of it’s weight and velocity
Genuinely the final boss of not reading, there isn’t any point continuing this as you’ve proven to be ignorant, to actually believe the Merkava Mk.4 is more of a competitive tank when compared to the Mk.3 actually baffles me and demanding for a reload buff isn’t a realistic demand.
Not to mention you ignoring the glaring fact that the M1 is receiving a massive nerf this update, Israeli mains may get the short end of the stick but when it comes to complaining, yall are second to none.
Lad, Ive read this entire argument, the 11.3 merkavas are some of the worst 11.3s in the damn game.
The ZTZ 99 II and III are far better tanks and they are 11.0.
the type 90s are miles ahead of them while not having the same penetration at an angle the JM33 beign fired every 4 seconds is wild. That means for every 2 shots an aced merkava Mk3 can put down range a stock Type 90 can.
Lets also not touch on the fact that the merkava MK3 armour is woefully bad, and has two rounds right on the floor infront of the engine so if you shoot clean through the engine deck, which even the round on the M1 can do, then you will detonate those two rounds. If you somehow miss them, you then spall into the entire crew and wipe it that way,
Merkavas are renowned in WT for being ridiculously low armoured and survivable.
Only the 9.3s actually being said to have some form of armour.
Ive 6 nations at top tier ground, with only isreal, italy, sweden and france to get, and france im 90k off a the first leclerc and isreal im 40k from teh merk m3.
Okay then, move the damn M1A1 to 11.7 where the likes of the Leopard 2PL , CR2 TES, Arietes and such all sit.
Why the M1A1 sits at 11.3 when it is far supperior to pretty much even the top tier merkavas is wild.
and what “massive” nerf is that buddy?
is it suddenly gonna be going 50 kmph? with a 6 second reload and lose all its protection?
Or is it getting some more modules put inside it? which isnt a massive nerf.
He is not an isreali main he probs has more top tier than you do.
Im not an isreali main, most folks that are complaining about the merkava are quite justified in teh matter.
By far the most irritating and audacious complainers are the USA mains acting like the abrams is a bad tank in this game when its in the catagory of top 3 MBTs at top tier.
You’re trying to argue by using anecdotes as evidence and even use false information to bolster your case.
You’ve claimed that M322 is amazing because it spalls crazy good due to it’s above average weight, which has now been proven to be false.
I genuinely hoped you’ll have some truthful arguments to present as why Mk3 isn’t clearly inferior to M1A1.
So far you only gave me your anecdotes and false information.
It’s funny calling me ignorant while you had no idea how spalling works in the game. No wonder you dodge talking about that topic as of now.
To be quite fair the round is actually better than the leclercs is it not?
The M1A1 also functionally wise has the same
as the M1A2 (which should also be 12.0)
so why the M1A1 gets to sit at a lower BR than the damn CR2 . leclerc. ariete is wild
lets go the old fashioned way.
Armour= over all the M1A1 has more effective armour due the merkavas models being shambolically done.
firepower = M1A1 has a better round, faster reload better gun handling and turret traverses.
mobility = the M1A1 is far faster, has better hull traverse, faster acceleration as well as equal or better reverse as merkava.
Profile = The M1A1 is far smaller than the merkava, not as tall, nor wide or long .( merkava is the biggest MBT in game I believe only CR2 is slightly longer but has a smaller front profile.)
Survivability = as mentioned above the Mekrava has two rounds on the floor behind the engine which detonate if a round pens, which it always does due to the armour being modelled wrong.
optics / view = Abrams has better zoom functions if I remember correctly but only has gen 1 thermals and a lack of a proper commander sight. Merkava is ahead in this one area.
overall the M1A1 abrams sits at the same BR but is better in every, single aspect, bar lack of thermals. and a commanders sight, which if you actually know how to play isnt that relevant anyways as the binos are for more easier to use and faster to sweep an area.
a caveat , the ZTZ 99 III and II are far, far more effective in top tier matches than the merkava Mk3’s , combine in the fact you also get the MBT2000 at 11.0 it is wild the merkava does not get the 5 second reload it should have
The ZTZ99 is a broken vehicle at 11.0 and I’ve said this countless of times, you can’t use something like the ZTZ99 as a example since it’s the exception and simply shouldn’t be at 11.0 - don’t use one wrong to correct one right.
Just lol, lmao even (even including a old fashion XD)
