I need to know from the general playerbase—or literally anybody at this point. On why this myth that’s been going around about this tank is that it’s
“supposed to be weak and have no armor against kinetic rounds, because it was only designed to counter insurgents with chemical munitions”
Because there are plenty of sources that already debunk this and even then-- the chemical munitions values are all artificially worse then they’re supposed to be
And even then, gaijins attempts to make the tank easier to kill then it already is.
I personally wouldn’t say you’re entirely wrong, but there are instances where I feel the Merkava’s armour falls short.
Relative to auto cannon fire, the Merkava is most definitely stronger then the Leclerc or M1A1, being near impenetrable frontally against even the HSTV (L), say for it’s transmission being easily taken out.
Relative to large calibre kinetic projectiles, however, I would say it is quite a bit worse then the M1A1 and ever so slightly worse then the Leclerc. The Merkava’s armour can be trolley against an unknowing player, but otherwise it’s usually disabled after a single shot. The M1A1 can take a decent bit of punishment to the turret cheeks and its UFP can sometimes ricochet incoming fire that missed the turret ring. The Leclerc can defend against shells to the far left and right of the turret cheek and somewhat effectively stop shells on the seam between the UFP and the LFP, though I would by no means call its armour good.
Personally, I think that the Merkava shines with its crew placement over its armour, as it is quite difficult to knock it out completely with a single shot, giving it a possible chance to either fire back or run away depending on what has been disabled.
The M1A1 is an 11.0 that stops slightly more than the Merkava frontally.
The Leclerc is in dire need of a buff, but it still better off in armor than the Merkava. The Left Turret Cheek can actually stop shells. The Merkava is entirely green to every shell at top tier frontally.
Just saying, there’s a reason I prefer using Merkava Mk3D over my Abrams in urban maps.
And yes, there are stronger rounds, and my claim was raw ARMOR not rounds. Obviously all 3 can be lolpenned by DM53, but that’s not related to my statement.
I will not move the goalposts to include top rounds as that would change my statement.
That’s basically saying after 1 hit anywhere on the ufp, you’ll be nerfed significantly, or just it be a crippling shot bad enough for a follow up-- And I’m sure that the armor used here can stop apfsds rounds. There’s no such thing as hull down in war thunder.
If anything, I’d say the very lower portion of the ufp where there is no “sandwhich” underneath would be a weakpoint, kind of like with the leopards, having that slight slant on it’s upper region
How are we to discredit a higher angeled ufp with armor protection
When Gaijin has been asked about Merkava Mk.4’s armor protection, their reply has been:
“See, the tank is huge, has more composite armor coverage than any other tank and yet weights just about the same as its counterparts; that proves the armor is low-density and therefore can’t possibly be effective against KE”.
Thing is, Merkava Mk.4 is an 80 ton tank in real life, and the reason for this enormous weight is because it’s a literal fortress on tracks. The IDF has officially and consistently given this 80 ton figure numerous times on interviews and even their very own verified YouTube channel.
However, Gaijin uses a 65 ton figure because it’s the one usually found on the internet, and they actively
refuse to believe that the tank itself weighs 80 tons.
Last time I could talk to a staff member about this, he replied that the developers “believed” that the 80 ton figure was accounting for a mine protection plate that’s already found ingame (on LIC) and which, trust me, doesn’t weight 15 tons. But whatever.
Then, the developers proceeded to add Namer with a 64 ton weight while somehow keeping the face straight. And they still can’t take a look at this and question whether they are doing something wrong or not…
The Merkava is also a very inefficient design due to the front mounted engine. There’s a reason why no one (except the Israelis apparently) make MBTs with front engines, it means not only does the front of the tank need to accommodate the driver, but also the engine and drivetrain, which means a wider hull, which means more space that needs to be armoured.
The 80 ton figure was disclosed by IDF and various related institutions such as the tank museum in Latrun. Israeli government website just hasn´t updated its materials. For those who really follow the Mk.4 program since its inception in the late 90s, we remember that the weight was always trated as a secret and the publicly stated figure was “more than 65 tonnes”.
On the other hand, one has to wonder why Mk.3 and 4 have the same maximum speed (60 km/h) if they both weight the same but the latter has a much more powerful engine and better transmission.
In my Gunner training for the Merkava when i was in the military, we learned that the Merkava is around 80 tonnes, depends on the variant (A/B/M/400M/Barak). The 65 tonnes figure given by the Israeli Gov and MoD is because theres a geneva convention rule that prohibits the use of really heavy armored vehicles. Atleast thats what we’ve been told, no idea, never looked it up.
Ive contacted the Latrun museum that holds the Mk4 and 4M in regards to the 65 tonnes figure they provide on their website. Still waiting on a reply.
