US assessment of Nato countries and Israel military technologies 1987.
14 Likes
i bet my life savings that gaijin will still ignore this lol
15 Likes
what exactly are you trying to prove by these documents? they do not state effective protection nor of the materials used in the Merkava’s armor package, nor the Merkava’s effective protection itself. The “hyper modern anti-kinetic materials” do not prove ANYTHING.
I assisted a banned calculations guy with some Merkava info from the game, he said using the publicly available data regarding NERA effectivity (I know it’s SLERA but it would be even less effective against APFSDS) the 360mm estimate isn’t unrealistic.
What’s unrealistic is that almost 2 meter engine and also transmission have like, only 200-300 mm of armor total, even if they’re made of softer materials they should have at least half their size protection. Right now 3BM60 passes through 50mm/58deg front plate, transmission, engine and spall liner and even after that reaches the crew. Internal modules are made of wood I suppose.
1 Like
Do they need to give an protection estimation ? What the documents show you that 40 years ago Israel had armor technology that could stop apfsds of that time period by using composite armor and explosives…the technology was inserted into category 1, which means it was new even for the americans and NATO states, they even added that the US urgently need this technology.
40 years later the merkava can only stop kinetics penetrators that were made in the 70.
That is what I’m trying to show.
I don’t pretend to know the numbers of protection but I know what the result should be.
Edit : I think I understand you confusion ; I was actually marking point number 2 (very badly if i might add) in the third photo not point number 3.
2 Likes
sure there is this photo from another post showing that gaijin didn’t model SLERA but NERA instead:
though it shows extreme pixel hunting as the protection level is nowhere close to 190mm but 360mm, or well it’s just a very old screenshot. And still, such documents with no tests stated but just the “ability to halt APFSDS” penetration do not serve as a source to change anything for gaijin (and in some report Russian bug report manager said “we accept modern armor reports as suggestions only”) Community Bug Reporting System. As soon as there is a recorded battle experience or test conducted, some changes can be made. Right now, they just use available data to model NERA, which may be weaker than what is already done IRL. Still, it’s pretty good and is estimated to be 0.74X protection from steel, which is very good for NERA that thin
4 Likes
I aktuali don’t like penetration/protection number talk… it means nothing to us… 750 mm of steel… what kind of steel ? How hard it is ? Against what and of penetrator rod ?
I never try to actually guess what kind of a defence number a tank has, I try to understand it’s purpose…
I’ve made a large article many years ago explaining the philosophy behind the Merkava.
Like I said back then, blocking an apfsds is not hard, every country can do it… The thing is what do you sacrifice in order to do it…
The Merkava has not changed from mark 1 to 4, mark 1 sacrificed the engine to save the crew, merkava 4 also sacrifices the armor to save the crew, it’s a perishable armor, very strong but fragile. Other NATO countries do not accept this philosophy as they fight very far from home which will stretch logistic lines. They choose to have strong armor but much more durable, so even if the crew die they can replace them.
I do not know how much the numeric value should be, but i know how the result should be. The Merkava gets hit, crew has high chance of surviving, armor needs to get damaged ( not totally be consumed like ERA) but still be damaged.
I see the point you’re making. All there is left is just to wait for gaijin to replace NERA with SLERA then, and well, improve module protection coefficient. Even with all that massive engine and transmission compartment, Merkava has awful survivability, of which in real life it tends to be the best.
1 Like
This excuse Gaijin have to say that we don’t have concrete numbers is just some BS, they pick and choose what they like accept or ignore… and from a certain view point i understand them. It is a game after all and should be balanced as such.
NATO tanks and russian tanks are not of the same technology level, but they need to have a game after all so they buff the T tanks and they nerf NATO tanks.
Also I do realize that if you up the tonnage of the merkava to 80-85 tons like in reality and buff the armor, Israel as a nation will suffer, it will be a nerf overall.
But I can’t help to want to see the Merkava doing what it’s made for… Even if the result will be: Israel suffers.
Bonus video :
75t to 80t
And it still be a buff cuz u will have stronger armor then 2a7
75 tonnes, 83 short tons (mk.4M)
Short tons?
Aps isnt that heavy bro
I bet your life savings that it isnt ignored, it is passed off as propoganda
3 Likes
Looks at their new battleship…
1 Like
Tbh the new battleships are alright exept the russian one that somehow has the same caliber as iowa but twice the tnt filler and same pen
And ofc bs armor
I wonder if when naval will reach cold war era with missiles if israel gonna get its naval tree and how nerfed it gonna be
Mk.3 is 80 short tons, Mk.4 with all composites is 83 short tons (75 t)
405 error
405 error
See this is what I hope they will potentially do to somehow make it more realistic. Tanks so many hits but gets depleted after so many hits. It would give it a balancing factor and still give it strong survivable potential. (They technically kinda have this already, cause the turret cheeks do get destroyed after so many hits already, therefore for they can make it happen it’s just if they listen to the community about it) in a sense yes it would be a nerf but it still would be a buff at the same time.
According yad lashiryon which is official idf tank museum both m3 and m4 weight 65 tons
Now maybe m4 is bit heavier but idf do claims the m4 have similar weight with having better protection
Problem is gaijin doesnt belive it
Lets say 65 is early variants there is still no way m3 is so heavy
Even m4 is a strech cuz its very agile for it being 80t so its probably fully loaded with 10man crew inside (6 can be in the back if im not mistaken)
Actual weight of a tank is in reality a highly guarded secret… be cause smart people who know tanks can figure stuff out if you give them the real weight. So when you read the official weight of every single modern tank they are all lies. So we know that merkava 1 is about 60 tons… 3 goes to 70, 4 to 80. But who know what are the real numbers. One way to look at it is to look at the engine, as it is not Israeli made, so they can’t lie about the horse power; from 1200 of mark 3 to 1500 of mark 4, without huge difference in mobility capabilities ( maybe a bit more mobile but still… Turtle ish in nature)
406mm weighing 1108kg with 25.7kg of explosive filler. Pens 660mm at 10km.
406mm weighing 1225kg with 18.55kg of explosive filler. Pens 667 at 10km.
Not double the filler, but a bit more.
I remember the aphe has 40kg tnt