https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/1eYOWMuJWJ3n
This is currently the biggest active bug report on the Merkavas hull armor. This might not be the one you’re looking for, but best guess is it’s this one.
Also want to add that apparently the user who made this report states the Merk Mk.4 can survive Kornets to the front, turret, and side (“to an extent”) with pictures to help show this fact.
he provided photo proof of the left turret cheek tanking a kornet. Which i dont deny it probably can.
the UFP how ever cannot.
EDIT:
idk but doesnt it look like a hit from a Kornet F3?
goddamn that looks thick, it looks like the side armor
As i said multiple times, warthunder isn’t a realistic game.
Even if it isn’t a “Realistic Game”, it is still very annoying and inaccurate to make the Merkava a cardboard.
And as I SAID multiple times: “They themselves have acknowledged this mistake a long time ago”. Yet, they still did nothing about it. We are only here to talk about it and the about the fact of how bad the armor is ingame compared to IRL.
And again! If people leaked Classified shit on this forum, then I am pretty sure this game aims to be pretty realistic.
You also made another error previously that went unchecked. Gaijin has indeed labeled the Merkava 4 has 65 tons, but it’s not. The IDF on several occasions has said that the vehicle weighs 80 tons.
Gaijin pulled 65 tons out of their ass.
statements and technical documents can vary. i doubt any MBT in the modern day will weigh 80 tons simply due to the fact that no military wants to lob around 80 tons of crap which you cant even pull over bridge cuz itll break
Have you seen the videos of it sluggishly moving around? It’s a house on tracks, and the IDF confirmed that it’s around ~80 tons. Any other source seems to be misinformed or incorrect. I mean just look at the Mk.3 vs Mk.4, and then look me in my eyes and tell me they weigh the same… lmao no…
Well the speed isn’t much a sign of the weight but i do have to agree on your second point.
Hmm… now to find a source that states 80 tons
Still don’t understand until this day that why tf instead of buff other MK4 to LIC level
But no nerf LIC to other MK IV level
The IDF themselves including those who worked with the vehicle.
You cannot tell me with a straight face that the difference between the Mark 1 and the mark 4 is only 2 tons. This can only mean one thing; Gaijin got the weights of the vehicles wrong.
You mentioned that you doubted a tank would weigh consistently close to 80 tons in this day and age because you’d have to lob it around, but you seem to have forgotten the only reason tanks in NATO aren’t 80 tons is because they have to worry about weak European bridges, large landmasses, and insufficient load capacity. Israel isn’t very big, they don’t have weak bridges, and they don’t struggle to move heavy vehicles either.
In the Middle East where it’s mostly desert or otherwise open landmasses with no geological issues, these vehicles have no reason to not be that heavy if they’re intended role is to take the brunt of an assault.
If you need a rapid response, that’s what the Eitan is for. It’s not meant for the urban CQC fight, but as an example. when HAMAS launched their attack, it was used to great effect in rapid response.
In Israel’s inventory, they have the heaviest military vehicles of this day and age as well as vehicles capable of doing rapid responses in emergencies. It’s a perfect blend for their situation.
There is literally no difference in armor between the Mk.4B and the Mk.4 LIC in-game. It’s literally just an extra 4B.
There was a difference when it was added, but it wasn’t intentional.
It’s unfortunate that Tech Trees which aren’t Germany, Russia, or Sweden can’t get anything good.
then they say they wont improve it because they say it’s performing fine
What differences should there be?
Used to be
LIC had stronger turret armor long ago before it got nerf
None really.
But there was at one point.
Yeah, but people complained.
And now we have nothing.
I have seen up to 74 tons in internet articles that mention the IDF, but are not direct sourced from them so that is hearsay with little value. Can you post an actual source for your 80 ton statement from IDF personnel?
I am not saying I know the weight, but you throw around alleged facts pretty easily. If Gaijin bites on this and increase the weight, what do you expect? Drastically more armor or a pig that wallows around and still has huge weak spots that will never be disproven due to classification? Does the Namer current armor situation in game give you a hint how this would go without real, verifiable proof of not only overall weight but specific armor weight and composition? Which you do not have.
Your approach with your weight statement threatens to make these tanks even worse ( hard to believe that is possible, but feed the Snail and see what happens….ask the Chally 2 crowd).
Yes, I can find a source, but it may take a while. Also, once again, need I remind you that in-game, the difference between the Merkava Mk.1 and the Merkava Mk.4 is only 2 tons. You and I both know that is incorrect on the highest degree.
Found the source already.
The IDF posted it themselves as the title and description of a video.
If you need more, then here’s more.
This one refers to the Merkava as “around 80 tons”.
At 1:02 in this video, the Narrator refers to the Merkava as 82 tons.
That’s 3 separate credible sources
Gaijin did temporarily buff the Merkava’s armor on one DEV server, but didn’t implement the changes since the vehicle as listed in-game is too light for armor coverage to have that added.
1500 horsepower with that transmission doesn’t make the Merkava slow.
Also, are you really against a vehicle being historically accurate just because it might get slightly sluggish? And what weakspots? Even the turret ring still has a LOS of around 200-300mm of composite.
Videos of this vehicle taking hits from Kornets and Tandem RPG weapons we know are roughly on par with an RPG-29, which has roughly 600mm of RHA penetration, exist on the internet and can easily be found. As it stands in-game, the Namer can’t stop even the M22 on the side.
It’s not hard to use something called “Deductive Reasoning” to realize the armor on the side and rear should be thicker based on the combat environment and videos online. Tha Namer proved itself all the way back in Operation Protective Edge as an extremely durable vehicle. It’s not just hearsay to call it that.
How? How is pointing out a glaring historical flaw in the Israeli Merkava models going to make the game worse?
The Merkava can stop a Kornet. Gaijin has acknowledged this for 9 months now. The Namer, even assuming they’re nearly the same weight like in-game, should also reasonably be able to stop a Kornet.
It has done so in real life AND has armor 20-40 years newer than a Challenger 2.
I’m sorry, but the Challenger, while less durable than it should be in-game, is not as durable as a vehicle that’s significantly newer or internally better. The Merkava 4 is a much newer vehicle overall than the Challenger and has higher tech inside it, it should be better.
That’s just logical. As far as I’m aware, the Merkava has also been in more combat.
