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

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
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

59

and its pays of with bad mobility no armor and gen 1 thermals
U have t90a with around the same mobility and 3bm60 but u have great armor and gen 2 thermals(yes im aware it has russian cons but it comes with russian pros like autoloader and low profile)

60

My point is that if your going to add an out of place MBT, an MBT from a nation more culturally, and militarily aligned would make more sense

61

  1. Yeah, the optics are standard. Better than the likes of the Type 90, T-80B, or Ariete, however.

  2. With the top tier CAS meta, being quite literally invulnerable to Helis and other forms of laser munitions is not something to scoff at. Also, you’re not using ESS right if you call it useless. It also has some of the best side armor of any MBT, only being beaten out by Russian tanks with side-mounted K5 and Relikt. Autocannons cannot penetrate the upper-side and the lower-side, being ~70mm, will not only reduce most of the spall, but due to the amount of empty space in the tank, will often lead to encounters where you soak up seconds of autocannon fire to the side and come out unscathed.

  3. You cannot downplay M322. 3BM42 and DM23 are FAR outclassed by M322, as M322 has a 100mm+ advantage over 3BM42 and 150mm+ over DM23. Also if you’re having problems penetrating the M1A1 HC, Leclerc, or T-80’s, thats a you problem.

  4. It directly outreloads the TURMS. 7.1s vs 6.4s experted on the Merk Mk.3. Do you even play the game at the higher tiers? It can go to 11.0 with a 5s reload or 11.0 without it. Its not a 10.7 tank.

  5. The Merkava Mk.3 has NO ammo in the turret. I don’t even know what you’re rambling about now. The ammunition is stored in the bottom of the tank and at the rear, giving it decent ammunition stowage. Also, don’t expect to take multiple hits in ANY MBT and come out unscathed. The Mk.3’s armor, while generally weak, can 100% save you a couple times. If it does, it did its job. Play it defensive, and make sure to shake your turret if you’re about to get hit.

  6. Yes, it does struggle with mobility. However, it’s better than vehicles like the Challenger, TURMS, T-72B, and T-90A.

  7. I doubt you even play the game. 11.3 is constant downtiers into 10.7 and 10.3 games. And wowie, the 12.0 vehicles will outperform you.

  8. Its platform supports it decently. Also, saying the 2A4 has equal firepower is laughable. My only takeaway from this is that I doubt you play the game. Its an 11.0 tank.

62

Isn’t the ready ammo stored in the back of the turret? Or am I just mistaking it for the Merkava Mk4s?
I’m not the best in tanks but the Merkava Mk 3s are okay, not the best but not the worst either. Of course, at the end of the day, it all depends on how you play them.

63

Yeah, the Merkava Mk.4’s ammo is stored in the turret rear.
The thing is with the Merkava is that it requires a special playstyle. You need to adjust to it.

64

Yep, it’s the same with russian vehicles, the mobility is not good at all when moving backwards but if you use it well, you might get better results. I like being able to move fast both backward and forward so I like the Merkavas more than the T-Series tanks. but of course it all comes to the playstyle.

1 Like
65

Not realy an argument.
India has rafale and the leo 2a4 copy. They are pretty western as well.
Just not in the aspect u might like.
Its not an argument.

66

First of all, you’re confusing several models. The Merkava Mk.3 is not the Mk.4. It has no active protection system, no hard-kill missile defenses. Any guided missile will destroy it instantly, and it has no real counter to helicopters other than smoke which, in the current CAS meta, is far from enough.

Regarding ESS, I never said it was theoretically useless, but in practice, thermal dominance at top tier makes ESS close to irrelevant. In open maps or multi-angle fights, it won’t save you at most, it buys you a second.

As for the ammo layout, as shown in the image I posted earlier, the Merkava Mk.3 stores 11 rounds split between two side ammo racks, with additional rounds placed in the turret. That layout is unique no other tank in its BR spreads ammo this recklessly. A single turret or side penetration often results in instant detonation. Meanwhile, other tanks store ammo in safer, more protected compartments.

Saying that autocannons “can’t penetrate” is simply wrong. Weapons like the CV90’s autocannon can easily penetrate both the turret and side armor. And let’s not forget: the Merkava has one of the largest silhouettes in the game. It’s an easy target from every angle.

The M322 round is strong, yes. But saying, “if you can’t penetrate an M1A1 HC or Leclerc, it’s your fault”, completely misses the point. Penetration alone doesn’t win engagements. If you shoot and can’t reposition before the enemy fires back, you lose. And in the Merkava, that happens a lot it has zero margin for error.

Its reload rate is decent, but not exceptional. It’s slightly faster than the TURMS (which has no autoloader and doesn’t fire ATGMs), but not enough to justify a full BR gap. On the other hand, T-80s do have guided missiles that can penetrate up to 850mm, which must be factored into any firepower comparison. The Merkava lacks such versatility.

Saying that it’s “faster than a Challenger” is hardly praise. It’s still slow, heavy, and has poor repositioning capabilities and in top tier, mobility is crucial for survival and tactical effectiveness.

Finally, claiming that I “don’t even play the game” because I criticize the Merkava Mk.3’s performance is not an argument. I play it and that’s exactly why I know how poorly it performs. And regarding matchmaking: the Raam Segol is frequently up-tiered into 11.7 and 12.0 matches, not 10.3 or 10.7 like you claimed. Those favorable matches are rare exceptions, not the norm.

67

yes it does

1 Like