Hey Folks!
When you look at the open source intel on Merkava MK.4 tanks, the battlefield loss rate is incredibly low. Even against specialized weapons.
Their Armor is quite tough. Using real world crew/hardware survival rates and comparing that to other nations rates is it time to reassess The MK.4s’ armor in game?
4 Likes
These tanks are a lost cause in Warthunder. Currently we seem to be stuck in this loop of snail not believing they could have more protection whilst weighing what they do - whilst simultaneously ignoring reports it’s some ~20 tons underweight.
We’ve images of a Merk’s turret allegedly surviving a Kornet impact. Ingame, Kornet goes clean through.
We’ve sources to explain how the UFP SLERA should function, ingame it acts like tissue paper.
We’ve images of the Turret cheeks - and how they’re like a solid two foot of layers composites, ingame, that act like tissue paper.
We’ve images of Namer’s side composite - showing how it’s thicker in depth than my forearm, yet ingame, it doesn’t even exist.
It’s hopeless.
10 Likes
In fact the Merkava armor could be better but referring to the real life data with you said: what is the relationship between tank combat and guerilla warfare?
Just because a tank is being used in a guerilla warfare, tank versus infantry it doesn’t means it will behave the same in a tank direct combat, which means there’s no reason for any update on the armor values based on it’s fighting poorly armed men.
“The Shawaz” was developed specifically for taking out Merkavas in Lebanon and only managed to take out two older MK.2 units. Arguably there should be far higher losses IRL due to specialized anti-tank weapons, ATGMs have to be used at 50 yards or less and in rapid succession to take out an older Merkava.
ignore troll
3 Likes
Thanks sometimes I find that hard to do.
Does Accepted mean what I think it does?
its been a year. it means they admitted that those were the issues back then, now you can look ingame to see if they have changed anything
Ok, so it is an issue but they haven’t done anything about it. Ok.
They should start with the smallest fix, replace the back door with a 200-300mm one 😂
3 Likes
Weight doesn’t prove armor, and no one’s provided evidence to suggest otherwise.
Merkava Mk4’s need to have their armor fixed, not their mass nerfed.
Weight doesn’t prove armor, however looking through bug reports literally proves that it’s armor is under performing.
1 Like
IRL loss rates aren’t that useful for comparisons to WT unless we can confirm it was a tank or ATGM that led to the loss. The majority of all vehicle losses IRL are mines and artillery with tank on tank battles being extremelly rare.
@Just_Baron claiming that wanting Merkava armor fixed makes you a troll.
No one ever called him anti-semitic.
You literally did and got flamed for it.
No results of me using the term.
If you support the Israel tech tree like I do, then so be it.
But stop accusing your allies of things they are not cause you get seen as an enemy of that tech tree when all you do is attack the people defending that tech tree.
I honestly think he’s confusing you for someone else there is a different user with a very similar username.
I wanted to let you guys know that I found a new source (a 2005 patent by Rafarl) that I´m convinced is the first and most solid support we have to argue for enhanced armor performance in Merkava 4, especially against APFSDS.
1 Like
You should look and see the Mk.4 having the same frontal armor as the Namer 30 lmao i just realize that shit