The Latrum museum has a mk4b to my knowledge
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
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
Nice defending the Merkava’s weak armor.
The fact I’m comparing an 11.3 tank to a 12.0 is the entire point.
Not great not terrible. A Dyatlov ?
When you use comparsion like that. What is your point then? Is 11.3 Abrams too good or 12.0 tanks are bad?
Russian old composite armor like on the T-55 AMD-1’s cheeks offers better KE protection than the Merkava Mk4 modern composites 😂
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.
And it’s not about looks either.
Now that I think about, it’s not just the minor nations. It’s all western nations, with the inclusion of some chinese tanks.
Most western tanks upper front armor plates are artifically nerfed to horrednous levels, while Russian tank have that saving grace of Relikt that degrades most of the penetration. IF it wasn’t there, all shot would pass straight through.
I’m not understanding what the point of this standard is, why one nation gets good protection and others don’t.
because the developers are Russian
Holy hell I never implied that Mk-4s have bad armor irl, btw the mk3d is an 80s tank I honestly struggle to believe this thing had such shit armor irl as it has in-game
Yep. The Merkava series was designed to fight tanks and absorb/ricochet APFSDS rounds, and only later they were modified to be able to do urban combat/COIN fighting as well, and retained their ability to fight tanks and be resistant to most APFSDS rounds.
No other MBT in the world can fight tanks AND terrorists, and that’s why everyone’s being a little jealous.
The mk3 was designed in the late 80s but was only built in 89 which technically makes it an 80s tank but I would call it a 90s one
But in WT they gave it WW2 level of protection, yeah whatever it’s a waste of time, same with the Ariete, even a blind cat would see that the armor values don’t make any sense, they know it too probably, I guess it’s for balancing reasons