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.
Merkava III is the same, the ram “seagull” is just a huge tin can on tracks, it can be lolpenned everywhere by tanks two whole br lower, sometimes it gets some BS bounces but that’s about it. It’s resistant towards atgms though, and that’s a big plus
What? Are you ok? You compared wrong tanks (11.3 vs 12.0). Whole problem is that Merkevas 4 armor is undeperforming at its BR. They are slow glass canons. You can make them work, but they are still not great not terrible. And there is no reason for that.
Mmmmh are you sure they’re not terrible? If the merkava III sucks merkava IV must suck aswell, but hey they look badass, and that’s basically the only reason to get them, because look is the major attribute of a tank regardless of performance.
thats realistic, autocannon fire is something its meant to withstand. the problem is the weakness to autocannon fire from those two tanks is too high, and the fact hstvl penetration is underperforming from what its supposed to be in real life
What the Merkavas 3 have are just cast hulls, so there is no armor in the front that will stop any apfsds, that’s a given.
But the Merkava 4’s are an entire upgrade and add completely new levels of protection. This is such a really bad take, because it’s like you think they both supposedly have the same weak protection.
If you’ve seen footage of these tanks in action, or did some research, you know they are nowhere near weak. Of course your only reference is WarThunder so you wouldn’t know any better.