sure.
reliability isnt a thing in this game and wont be. we can already throw off armor from leopard 2’s cheeks. lets do the same to merkavas composite.
no the game would be great with these additions. merkava players like to complain. go call the people who designed merkava if you dont like it.
U can dude if u get hit by atgm or smt u have a chance of it to throw it off like the leo
Did u play the merkava?
Should be on par with leo 2a7 but insted its less armored then leclerc and maybe even ariete
Insted of being half heavy tank like it should be its mbt with light tank armor
Dont come to me with merkava players complaining cuz israel players suffers the most and its not even close
And dont let me start on spaa
Ha u are germany main and u never touched israel
I understand your point, and I can see why you believe it is over-performing in this regard, but I do believe that it should be enhanced in it’s protective capabilities for the sake of game play. If the degradable armour on the Merkava is better emphasized than it is in-game (in my testing, it takes ~5 shots of DM53 to remove a segment in it’s current state, and only certain sections can be removed as shown bellow), the armour should be able to stop shells up to at least KE-W as well as kornets before becoming degraded enough to be susceptible to guaranteed penetration. I also don’t see an issue of the armour being repairable at capture points if this was implemented as it’s armour is made to be replaceable.
I can see the armour working in a similar manner to Russian ERA, nearly guaranteeing a non-penetration against even the most devastating projectiles in trade of a new exposed weak point for opponents to shoot at and have a higher chance of penetrating. Of course in the Merkava’s case, it would be a far larger weak spot than a small ERA charge being detonated, but if this is implemented in the Merkava’s current state, it doesn’t quite make sense to me that nearly all contemporary shells would go right through anyways on top of destroying the armour even more. I’m not implying it to be invincible to the likes of DM53, just more competent than it is now.
In it’s current state, the armour is under preforming against both chemical and kinetic penetrates, so in my honest opinion, it’s only fair, by a realistic and game play standpoint, for the armour to be buffed before it is nerfed.
The turret should have no issue stoping bm60
Arguably the hull too with sacrifising the engine
what is your source
im still correct about what im talking
that would be for another argument. for now ill agree with it
the composite should work somewhat similar to the abrams/leos composite, but get easily damaged due to how the “casing” was built on it for weight saving reasons.
the hull is a bit of a stretch
Irl performance and tanks experts on merkava performance
U are correct irl but in game it shouldnt be like that at least in the corrent state
Yea it will be 50 50
I call BS
i doubt the front of the hull has been fired at by bm60. “irl performance” you can link me up to some tank armor trials of the merkava armor to show me that it performed as well as leopard 2’s armor against apfsds then
you can read more about it there.
Interesting, I heard that incident was caused by an M339 shell, not M392, however a comment under the post also states a different shell that was used in the training regiment. Personally, I don’t have a clue.
I dont have the video i saw tons if videos about merkava
idf claims that merkava can stop all treaths in the region from other tanks from the front at least which including the egypt top round which is ke-w ehich is similiar in performance to bm60
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/1eYOWMuJWJ3n
Here is the bug report on it that was accepted so who knows maybe we can see merkava armor rework soon
Right but guessing how much damage Merk 4 armor modules can absorb before becoming useless is an impossible task. They are meant to be replaced after a few HEAT hits and perhaps can withstand a much larger quantity of APFSDS.
yeah and a particular goverment claimed that a t72b3 destroyed abrams with a single shot even though in reality it was destroyed by a drone
it is pointless to blindly trust such sources. the usa goverment have also talked trash about performance of something (patriot, wink wink)
good however it seems to be for armor type fix rather than making the armor invulnerable to 3bm60 because the reasoning wouldn’t be accepted but the type was factually incorrect with shown sources which will be corrected
when a bug report gets accepted with multiple claims, it means that the base claim may be accepted while the other claims with less evidence dont. it will still show up as accepted.
definetly the damage in that image is meant to be replaced as soon as its viable which was after 1 atgm.
remember that while the general area damage may be less, it will cause much deeper damage instead.
Yeah but considering the merkavas were made specifically with crew protection in mind it would make no sense that the front armor sucks
Weak turret too for the tank of it weighs
and some fighters were made with air superiority in mind yet got beaten by some multirole fighters in the same task
yes the merkava was made with crew protection in mind but they also had weight restrictions in mind, too. its not invulnerable from front.
its not very weak. additionally a lot of the weight in the tank comes from the side composite armor that other tanks dont have.
I remember when LIC variant used to have better turret protection than the rest of Mk4 but instead of buff rest of mk4 standard they nerf LIC Until these day nobody know why gaijin did that
The thing weighs 80 tons irl but 65.5 in game
weight isnt based on armor values ingame though. devs add it as standalone. they might add more weight if they add more armor or they may not. they just try to use it to simulate.
better 65.5 ingame with current armor than 80 and needing to buff that too
Can we consider introducing the shed at the top of the turret into the game Mekava 4 as a modification? Personally, I think it’s not bad. Because its installation is a considerable distance from the top armour of the turret, once it is locked to the top by missiles such as AGM65, it can also detonate them in advance, which makes up for the shortcomings of the APS system for insufficient interception above.
