And Russian gun depression only comes into play when you are trying to hull down on hills, with most hills still allowing such.
I’m sure .4 seconds is a massive tradeoff for gaining almost 25mm of 60 degree angled penetration 3BM42-2 is superior to M900 at most ranges and angles by about 15mm, if you wish to quantify that they are tangentially similar then you would also consider functionally every entry level turbodart to be such.
I guess the question now is moreso what would you consider a needed amount of penetration for the darts to actually stand apart.
A interesting claim as I believe a good number of people hold onto the notion that L7 smoke rounds are quite useful, a very different measure to how those in this thread seem to think of the BVM’s GLATM.
And? Such does not change the performance of the vehicles.
Incorrect, the Merkava 4M has a PWTR of 22.9 HP/T while the T-90M Arena is 22.2 HP/T, .7 HP/T is not even remotely close to enough to have a tangible performance gap.
I will give you that as the transmission of the Merkava is indeed nice being able to operate at full speed forward or backwards.
So beyond having +20 degrees elevation that we have already established as being of dubious usability, at least better on the Merkava 4M as it has TF rounds, you are aware that the maximum depression is -7 on the 4M, are you telling me that only 2 degrees of gun depression is somehow enough to tangibly make the 4M better at hill work? I vehemently disagree.
Once again I would love for you to quantify what “utility” features exist. Both vehicles sport APS, both vehicles have TF HE rounds, both have ESS and smoke launchers, both have LWS, the only differences I see utility wise is that the T-90M Arena has HE-FS, GLATMs and a commander’s .50 on a RCWS, the 4M only sports a commander’s 7.62 which is quite the downgrade over a .50.
Both vehicles also sport identical gunner’s optics as well and both have IRST autotrack.
Already highlighted above, reload coping does not make up for the other shortfalls of the vehicle.
The first stage rack is 10 rounds what are you on about the 4M somehow having better ammo storage? Are you seriously choosing to run around with two Leopard 2 hull racks on the rear of your vehicle?
Never mind the two rounds that sit right behind the engine and are the most common cause of death on all Merkava versions.
So lets get to the actual elephant in the room, one vehicle sports spall liners and the other does not and the 35mm internal plate separating the engine compartment is a spall generation device on the Merkava, meanwhile the forward “external” fuel tanks on the T-90M Arena cannot generate spall and easily absorb such. To that same end, the 4M’s overall armor scheme is vastly inferior against any of the darts it faces.
Still doing this? Its getting boring at this point.
Why would you ever need to know the “weakspots of shermans” just shoot center mass, 90% of the things at their BRs can lolpen them without issue, only the 105 shermans and wumbos have armor that is tangibly effective and both share the same weakpoints, mantlet shot trap, MG port, final drive well.
