Israel is the worst nation to play in, and Raam Sagol is a useless headache

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
39

Let me respond briefly to that line of reasoning and respectfully challenge the assumption behind it. When exactly do you believe premium vehicles should be worse than their tech tree counterparts to the point of being outright uncompetitive? Because if the logic is to avoid “pay-to-win” scenarios, then making a premium tank functionally worse than every other vehicle in its BR including tech tree tanks from lower tiers is not balance; it’s negligence.

Let’s be clear: no one is asking for premium vehicles to be overpowered. We don’t expect them to dominate or carry entire matches. But a premium vehicle should at minimum offer parity with its BR — it should be viable, competitive, and fair to use. It should not be a punishment for the player who invested real money into it. That’s just bad game design, and it borders on disrespect to the player base.

Let’s take the Raam Segol as a case in point. This is a BR 11.3 vehicle that is worse in survivability, optics, mobility, and internal layout than many tech tree tanks one or even two BRs below it. Its ammo placement makes it a death trap. Its thermals are weak. Its massive profile is hard to hide, and it can be frontally penned by tanks at 10.3. Meanwhile, it’s expected to compete against 12.0 lineups? That’s not a challenge it’s a guaranteed loss.

Now contrast that with the Russian tree, where vehicles like the 2S38, T-72AV (TURMS-T), and even older premiums like the T-55AM-1 are often superior to their tech tree equivalents, with better thermals, survivability, or firepower. The same goes for US premiums, like the M1A1 AIM or the RDF/LT, which are highly effective and comfortably hold their own at their BRs. These premiums deliver value and performance appropriate to their cost which is what any reasonable player expects.

No one is saying the Raam Segol needs to win games on its own, but it should at least stand a fighting chance. As it stands, it feels like it was intentionally made to underperform and that raises serious concerns about consistency in premium vehicle design. Can anyone honestly name another premium vehicle that feels like it’s deliberately built to make the game harder for the person who paid for it?

At the end of the day, people aren’t paying to win. But they also shouldn’t be paying to lose.

40

still not a subtree, the canadian leo and australian abrams are placed where they belong

2 Likes
41

it a CAS nightmare, though… Send a KH-29T Air to Ground missle 180KG of TNT and it just absorbed everything from the top of the turret.

42

I still think India and Israel should be in the same tech tree after a certain BR. They share too much tech today not to be together at the top tier.

1 Like
43

And all that would be fixed if they added ✨nation folders✨

1 Like
44

I dont.

Avoiding pay to win scenarios in any freemium game can never be a bad thing for players.

Just because it is premium doesnt mean the vehicle should perform the same as every other vehicle in its BR.

Taking this example to the extreme, look at premiums like Panzerwerfer 42. There isnt a BR where this thing would be competitive, so if premium tank = cant be functionally worse than every other vehicle in its BR and should be viable, competetive and fair to use, it would need some artificial buff, which is not a good thing.

Of course top tier premiums and MBTs are more naunced but i just wanted to get a point across.

Anyway

Premium status should have absolutely no bearing on vehicle balance, be it Raam Segol, Clickbait or TURMS.

Premium vehicles should not have any special privileges when it comes to their balance.

Take look at Clickbait vs. TT M1A1HC. These tanks are identical as far as i know bar Clickbaits unique decorations and premium status and as such they should always share the BR and any balance decision about their kit. In no way shape or form should Clickbait recieve preferential treatment over M1A1HC just because its premium.

If you want to argue that Raam Segol (and 11.3 Merkavas in general) isnt competetive, sure go ahead.

Just dont build your argument off Raam Segols premium status.

45

Besides- holy Jesus, use Spoilers, scrolling down past that felt like that intro scene from Spaceballs where the starship just keeps going for like 2 minutes lmao

5 Likes
46

I have had bad luck when fighting the Raam sagol. I shoot it and my shot bounces or does minimal damage and then they look at me and one tap me.

1 Like
47

Small off topic, but they DEFINITELY spent some bucks on that render :P

48

Actually, I’ll agree with you in general terms. Yesterday, I took the time to thoroughly review Israel’s entire ground tree, and the situation is quite concerningb especially in top tier. The Merkava Mk.3s sitting at BR 11.3 simply make no sense. These are vehicles that cannot compete fairly with others in that battle rating. In my opinion, they should be dropped to 10.7 at the very least, and honestly, they could easily fit into 10.3 or even 10.0, if not for their main gun, which still performs decently though even that isn’t enough to justify their current placement.

From my own experience, I’ve taken out Merkava Mk.3s with little effort using even older T-72s, which says a lot. The armor protection on the Mk.3 is far below what you’d expect from a modern medium tank, and its lack of mobility makes it an easy target in nearly any scenario. If it at least had a decent thermal sight, one might be able to compensate for its weaknesses, but it doesn’t. So what we’re left with is a slow, poorly protected, and under-equipped vehicle that simply cannot hold its own in 11.3. It’s not that these tanks should be the best in the game but they should at least be able to compete with others at the same level.

To put things into perspective: when I play top tier with Israel, I get much better performance out of the Merkava Mk.2D, which is theoretically an inferior tank. Yet it somehow holds up better, absorbs more damage, and I’ve even gone toe-to-toe with T-80s both tech tree and premium and survived. Its gun might not always penetrate, but at least it gives you time to reposition or react. That’s already more than the Mk.3s offer. That contrast speaks volumes.

Also, when I play against Israel whether with Germany, Russia, the U.S., Sweden, or the UK I almost always win. The Israeli ground tree is noticeably weak overall. That said, there’s an interesting proposal floating around suggesting the addition of Chile into the Israeli tech tree, adding local or modified German vehicles to provide more versatility and depth. I don’t think that would suddenly make Israel the best nation in the game, but it would help them climb out of the bottom in terms of performance and make them a far more viable and appealing tree to grind.

And honestly, I agree with the general consensus: maybe Israel should never have been a standalone tech tree in the first place. But now that it exists, it should be balanced properly and at least offer a basic level of competitive gameplay. Ironically, the only branch I’ve genuinely enjoyed so far is the Israeli air tree, which is essentially a blend of the U.S. and French lines well-structured, but without breaking balance.

49

I’m going to nitpick here. The M1A1 HC is better because of the dozer (Eats even full-calibre APFSDS) and a lack of clutter on the roof. But otherwise identical.

50

Yeah, the thing is with the Merkavas is that their in-game armor is far better than it is in the protection analysis.

51

The Merkava Mk.3’s are 11.0 material. End of story. Saying they should go to 10.3 or 10.0 is a deluded statement.

52

What are you basing your claim on when you say that the Merkava is appropriate for BR 11.0, if it lacks the components and capabilities that other vehicles at that tier have? Technically and practically, it’s at a clear disadvantage. It doesn’t have modern thermals, its mobility is subpar, its armor is ineffective against most common threats, and its high profile makes it an easy target.

Realistically, the only two redeemable traits are its generous smoke deployment and its powerful main gun. However, even its firepower is nothing extraordinary. Its reload time is perfectly average neither slow nor fast — and doesn’t offer a competitive edge over comparable tanks. If having a strong gun alone were enough to justify a high BR, then by that logic, artillery pieces like the M109 should be sitting at BR 10 or higher, which is clearly absurd.

The point isn’t that the Merkava should be dropped to 10.0 or 10.3 — when I referenced those BRs, it was to emphasize that even in those lower tiers, the tank barely feels superior, which highlights how misplaced it is at 11.3.

The most reasonable adjustment would be to move it to BR 10.7, placing it alongside vehicles like the Leopard 2A4, which it closely parallels in terms of generation and role. The Leopard is more agile and has better optics, while the Merkava compensates with more smoke and a slightly stronger gun. In essence, the Merkava Mk.3 functions like a heavy Leopard 2A4 one that lacks proper armor but trades that for marginally better firepower and support tools. At 10.7, it would finally face enemies it can reasonably compete with, restoring balance and making it a viable choice without being overpowered.

53

Merkava Mk.3 is well suited for 11.0. It has many little features that make it nice to play. I’ll list a few:

  • Good Optics (5x-12x and Gen 1 Thermals - Standard for 11.3)
  • ESS + Like 60 Smokes XD
  • Fantastic round even for 11.3, it would have the best firepower at its BR if moved to 11.0. Also paired with a decent reload, which could be buffed to 5s
  • Good survivability, you will tank a hit or two before dying, however the name of the game is to not get hit
  • Trolly armor, its armor is stronger in-game than it is in the protection analysis

Where it lacks is in the mobility department, where it is not much better than a Challenger.
Unless you can find it a round worse than M322 it is not going below 11.0.

54

The front turret wedges are so thin and empty, I wonder what’s gaijin’s logic of making the most important armor part into empty armor - almost all the KE armor in the front turret is from the turret base structure, doesn’t make much sense. It should at least get its armor fixed somehow or maybe get the LAHAT ATGM, which in fact it can fire, and there are pictures of it being fired by Merkava Mk3, so nobody can say “we never saw it firing the LAHAT”.

3 Likes
55

I finished the Israeli ground tree a few months ago, so I my memory may trick me but one of the biggest problems about the Mk. 3 is the lacking lineup. You’re baseically left with the two iterations of the Mk. 3 (three if you spend real money - which you should rather do for the Mk. 2 D if you’re interested to grind isreal). At that time there was no Sabra - therefore I never played it - but on paper it’s the next best vehicle to support the Mk. 3’s and that’s it. 3 (maybe 4) very mediocre vehicles.

The Mk. 3 is a glass canon and not a particular good one at that, because there’s nothing other than good ammo. Mobility is bad, reload time is okay, optics are okay (base could be less, first gen thermals), armor is bad. You do get LWS though, that’s pretty handy.
But as pretty much any other vehicle, the best thing is to get not shot in the first place.

Grinding between 9.3 and 12.0 was pretty rough, but mandatory, so you have somewhat capeable backup vehicles once you unlock the Mk. 4.
The recent additions like the Chaparral or the Namer don’t make much of a change. The AA is useless and the Namer is a +60t pile of garbage that’s nothing but a tool for spotting as soon as something touches your ammo. Unless they correct the armor of that thing avoid it at all cost.

12.0 is pretty fun though. I wish the APS of the Mk.4M could save me from the Russian Kh38 missile and the armor would be a bit better - can’t believe a vehicle with +65t performs so bad in comparison to other tanks in that weightclass, but the overall perfermance is much better (even better ammo, great optics, much better mobility, good reload rate). Coupled with some excelent helis (can’t say anything about planes as I suck at dogfighting) the top tier line up is pretty decent and I’m so hyped about the Spyder AIO. I can’t wait to get something to deal with those Su-30/34s.

1 Like
56

I understand that for some players the Merkava Mk.3 Raam Segol might feel “fun” to play, but we need to separate personal enjoyment from actual performance within War Thunder’s top-tier ground meta. If we’re going to justify its current BR of 11.3, we have to do so based on facts, not idealized assumptions.

  1. Optics and thermals: You mentioned its 5x–12x zoom and Gen 1 thermals as a strength but that’s the bare minimum expected for a vehicle at 11.3. The majority of tanks in this BR range already have equal or superior thermal systems, including Gen 2, so this is not a competitive advantage, just a basic requirement.

  2. ESS and smoke launchers: Yes, it has 60 smoke grenades, which looks good on paper. But smoke doesn’t compensate for poor side protection, sluggish mobility, or lack of repositioning power. You can hide once, but without the speed to escape or flank, it’s often pointless. Also, ESS is nearly useless when most of your opponents are using thermal sights.

  3. M322 round: Sure, it’s a solid round, but it’s not unique. The TURMS uses 3BM42, and vehicles like the Leopard 2A4 can fire highly effective shells as well and they’re more mobile. The Merkava’s cannon alone does not justify staying at BR 11.3. If it were dropped to 11.0, it would still face dangerous opponents like the T-80, Leclerc S1, and M1A1 HC so the idea that it would suddenly be “the best” is not backed by reality.

  4. Reload time: Claiming it could get a 5-second reload is purely speculative. In practice, its reload time is average, not exceptional. It doesn’t outperform other tanks in reload speed, especially when compared to the TURMS with its autoloader. You can’t justify a BR based on hypothetical reload rates.

  5. Survivability and “trolly armor”: Real gameplay shows otherwise. The Merkava’s ammo is scattered in two vulnerable racks, which means even a hit to the turret can result in instant ammo detonation. Its massive silhouette makes it one of the easiest targets in the game. This so-called “trolly armor” may catch players off guard once, but it doesn’t hold up under repeated engagements. It’s anecdotal at best.

  6. Mobility: You yourself admitted it struggles in this area. And in top-tier, mobility is everything it defines survivability, flanking, retreat, and tactical repositioning. Being “not much better than a Challenger” is hardly a compliment. In a tier where speed and agility are essential, the Merkava is a slow and predictable target.

  7. Matchmaking reality: Perhaps the most overlooked point is this you will not be fighting mostly 11.3 or 11.0 opponents. In most cases, the Raam Segol is up-tiered into 11.7 and 12.0 matches, facing the likes of the T-80BVM, Leclerc S2, M1A2 SEP, and Type 10. These are vehicles with superior optics, mobility, protection, and firepower, and the Merkava simply can’t keep up. So the claim that it’s “balanced” at 11.3 falls apart when you consider the actual matchmaking it faces.

  8. “It won’t go below 11.0 unless it gets worse ammo”: This ignores the fundamental purpose of BRs relative performance, not isolated stats. A vehicle can have a strong gun, but if the rest of its platform can’t support it competitively, then it needs a lower BR. And that’s the case here. Even a Leopard 2A4 at 10.7 can reliably destroy a Raam Segol with better mobility, better handling, and equal firepower.

Conclusion: The Merkava Mk.3 Raam Segol doesn’t need a nerf — it needs a BR that reflects its overall performance. Dropping it to 10.7 wouldn’t make it overpowered; it would make it fair. It would still face strong opponents, but at least it wouldn’t be hopelessly outclassed in almost every match. You can’t justify a vehicle’s position in 11.3 just because it has decent smoke and a strong round — especially when it’s slow, poorly protected, lacks thermal superiority, and is consistently matched against 12.0 tanks.

3 Likes
57

slightly?? the 11.3 merkavas have nearly 200mm more pen than the leopard 2a4

1 Like
58

No it does not
One of the worst mbts in the game
The namer is a joke
And u missing spaa(hopefully not for long)
In cas u have only the f15i which is good if u arent against a pantsir