You’re just gonna end up with a 82t Merkava without any armour changes. That’s how Gaijin works.
The meta doesn’t revolve around who’s got the best armour. The T-90M is non-meta and one of the least powerful 12.0’s in the game, dispite the fact that it’s got amongst the best armour of any vehicle in the game.
If you took a Strv 122 and halved it’s gun depression, reduced it’s reverse to -5 km/h, took away 300 hp from the engine, gave it a 7.5s reload, removed the spall liners and gave it non-removable hull stowage racks, you’d suddenly have a pretty poor vehicle, regardless of that immense armour.
Ppl who thinks 90m is bad are ppl who didnt played minor nations with bad mbts like ariete or merkava
Same ppl who thinks t90m is bad thinks t72a is bad too
And let me tell u the last thing u can say about t series is that they are bad
I grind russia rn im on 9.3 and i didnt came across a single bad t series
Hence why I said mobility combined with armor. The Merkava would get similar mobility to a base CR2, which i’ve played, and for me, the mobility on it was fine.
I read somewhere that the Merkava 3D armor was comparable to the D, i would love it if they gave all the merkava’s some love. (i don’t have a source for the 3D claim)
I just don’t understand why people are saying it won’t get more armor if it weighed more when gaijin literally stated that they would give it more armor if it did weigh more, and now sources have been given, and people still stomp into the trash. and if you want to compare the Namer to this as well, you can see how it’s in the same boat with the merks.
and try and tell me how the merk mk3’s are "supposedly 2-3 tons lighter than the merk 4, I mean honestly look at the size difference and all around everything and tell me they are “similar in weight somehow” and don’t need an armor buff with a tradeoff to mobility
Ingame T-90M hull is 196mm at 61 degrees, which means LOS of ~404mm. With the ERA that it has we can see that the KE armor is ~754mm, and CE is ~1250mm. Knowing that the ERA provides 250mm KE armor and 650mm CE, it means that for the T-90M hull, ~404mm = ~504mm KE and ~600mm CE.
Merkava Mk4 hull is 170mm at 74 degrees, which means LOS of ~616mm. It provides ~1050mm CE, and ~365mm KE.
How is it possible that 50% of Merkava Mk4’s KE armor comes from 50mm(5 centimeters) of RHA?
And how is it possible that one piece of Relict ERA(250mm KE armor) is equal to ~68% of Merkava Mk4’s frontal KE armor?
‘‘Same ppl who thinks t90m is bad thinks t72a is bad too’’-noamax
I never claimed the T-72A was bad, I said it was extremely average, which it is.
None of this changes the fact that you’ve never played the T-90M. If someone judges a vehicle’s worth, they ought to at least have some significant number of games under their belt.
The T-90M is among the least meta MBT’s at 12.0 thanks to it’s:
Abysmal reverse.
Atrocious reload rate.
Awful gun depression.
No neutral steering.
Poor acceleration.
Low top speed.
Abysmal reverse steering.
Extremely RNG survivability.
Low penetration.
Like I said previously, mobility = meta. If the T-90M had mobility equal to the T-80BVM or M1A2 SEP it’d be significantly better than it currently is, but it doesn’t.
68 degrees*
All T-72/64/80/90 glacis plates are sloped at 68 degrees.
My bad about the angle of the hull. But still, almost all the problems you mentioned(speed, gun depression etc) exist also in real life. On the other hand, there are many things and features the Merkava Mk4 has in reality, besides armor.
It’s missing - mortars, LAHAT ATGM(800mm+ penetration, can direct/top strike), ball chains behind the turret, 200-300mm armored backdoor, special spall liners(thats what I’ve heard at least, tho almost every modern tank has spall liners) and some more stuff that I don’t know/remember.
I honestly think they just dont like Israel, from whatever reason. It can be seen more clearly in the Merkava Mk3’s hollow armor, and the Namer non-existent armor(filled with air that’s heavier than a Leopard 2A7V).