This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Why is this being posted again?
2 Likes
that would be the T-14
merkava is a weird MBT, you have to take different shots than you would for others. Engine is protecting lfp, ammo is in the back instead of up front like others. Just shoot near the drivers port/under the gun, and side aspect shoot where most tanks engines normally are is what works for me.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
that’s funny, considering all I’ve seen is them breaking down in a parade, not even a war case scenario
I think everyone can admit the merks have been completely gimped since release, the namer being the latest of the armor issues for sure. and the anti-air problems for the spyder, it took them weeks to finally change just the P5 smokeless motor. the fact that a bug reporting manager said that the P5 in reality has a smoke trail is glorifying the fact these devs take no time to look at Israel tech and its problems. same goes for other nations respectively. but Israel is clearly underrepresented with their armor doctrine.
yep. 2 merkavas were destroyed in the war. this one, by a literally 3 ton IED, and still the driver survived.
don’t make a fool of yourself, not even the p1000 ratte could survive that
4 Likes
I mean, yeah, they’re good, but not as good as Leopards or Abrams.
more survivable.
This is just a spam post of no use. Instead of pointing out actual issues of the tank, your posts are made up of vague beliefs you have because of your bias. There are multiple other threads which are better than this one. I think this should just be locked.
1 Like
Absolutely agree. Israel’s entire armored doctrine is based on survivability and system integration — and yet, in War Thunder, it’s as if none of that exists.
- Merkava MBTs are designed to prioritize crew survival, with compartmentalized ammo, engine-forward layout, and modular armor.
- The Namer is one of the heaviest and most protected APCs in the world, yet it can get penned frontally by rounds that struggle against IFVs in other trees.
The Spyder P5 issue just adds to the insult — a bug manager claiming that a smokeless solid motor has a smoke trail is beyond absurd. It shows a clear lack of engagement with Israeli defense industry data.
🟡 If Gaijin wants to simulate reality, they must stop treating Israeli vehicles like generic placeholders. Either make a fair simulation, or stop calling it one.
Israel’s underrepresentation isn’t just mechanical — it’s systemic.
1 Like
One picture doesn’t erase decades of design excellence.
The Merkava wasn’t built for parade ground stats or Reddit memes.
It was designed around crew survivability, modularity, and networked battlefield awareness — not just raw armor or penetration.
Yes, any tank can be destroyed in the wrong situation.
Even Leopards and Abrams have burned in combat.
But when used as intended — with active protection, infantry integration, and terrain advantage — the Merkava is one of the most survivable and lethal MBTs ever deployed.
Don’t let a kill cam define a war machine.
1 Like
Oh, so now asking for realism is “spam”? Interesting standard.
Let me guess — when it’s about buffing your favorite overperforming paper tanks from a collapsed regime, it’s called “feedback.”
But when someone brings up reality design features of a Western MBT that survived real wars, you cry bias and ask for the thread to be locked?
This thread hurts because it doesn’t fit your comfort zone. It reminds you that outside your fantasy stats and kill streaks, there’s a real world where crew survivability matters more than your K/D.
You can try to bury the thread.
You can’t bury the fact that Israel fielded one of the most advanced armor doctrines in modern history — and that hurts more than any APFSDS round.
1 Like
It did not break down, the handbrake was mistakenly engaged.
That’s not to say it doesn’t have teething issues, just pointing out that that example was not related to reliability.
You are posting excessively for the sake of posting, which is spam.
The rest of this reply is just ragebait.
If presenting evidence and doctrine is “ragebait” to you, that says more about your emotional fragility than my arguments.
Sorry if a fact-based discussion offends your digital nationalism.
This isn’t rage — it’s frustration, measured and aimed, at how certain vehicles and doctrines are consistently misrepresented.
You can call it spam all you want. That won’t change the reality you refuse to face:
Crew survivability, layered protection, combat-tested modularity.
Words that make certain people sweat behind anonymous profiles.