Why substantially buffing the Merkavas mk.4 would benefit everyone

During the AMPV program to replace the M113, the Namer was brought up as an example of survivability. A main issue with the Namer, however, was that its weight exceeded the recommended crossing weight of European Bridges.

The Namer within War Thunder is 64.4 tons, slightly heavier than a Leopard 2A7V, but less than an M1A2 SEPv2 and SEPv3 in-game. The SEPv3 is present in Europe, and while very heavy, it still crosses bridges within Europe, even if carefully, thanks to its Military Load Classification Rating of 120. MLC Source below.

Lessons Learned for Gap Crossing High MLC Vehicles | Article | The United States Army

In War Thunder, the Merkava Siman 4 and the Namer are supposedly only 0.6 tons apart in weight. That alone feels extremely unrealistic.

When you zoom out, the problems become even clearer. The Siman 4 is only about 4 tons heavier than the much older Merkava Siman 1. Strangely enough, it weighs exactly the same as the Siman 3.

To make matters worse, every Siman 3 variant in the game shares the exact same listed weight, no matter what armor package it’s supposed to have. For example, the Siman 3B and Siman 3D are shown as identical in weight, despite obviously having very different armor configurations.

When you put it all together, it’s pretty clear using basic logic: the weights of all the Merkava-based vehicles in the game are grossly unrealistic and clearly lower than they should be.

Though you don’t have to take my word for it, the IDF itself stated it’s 80 tons in promotional material. In this video source, they not only named the video “How do you move a tank that weighs 80 tons?”, but they also talk about it around 36 seconds in.

איך מזיזים טנק ששוקל 80 טון??? | צה״ל - YouTube

Also, as far as I know, the Merkava Mk3’s side NERA armor has fairly low KE resistance, so composite armor like the front ERA layer should be somewhat effective…

This information comes from the cassette-style armor found on the Magach 7C as well.
I don’t really understand that document either.

I agree with the opinion that the 3BM42 is a powerful round and should easily penetrate the Merkava Mk3.

Maybe I liked the Merkava more than I realized.

I still had this document.
Integrated NERA y ERA

1 Like

I have that as well, but it’s deep in my files haha

When you love Merkaba too much, this is what happens, right? lol

I agree the weight in game doesn’t add up with advertised weights (the 80 ton figure also doesn’t ring as completely reputable either, but again the game weight also if we assume the Merkava is correct weight, the Namer doesn’t add up at all). But we cannot assume protection level on its face purely based on weight, and size (if we could these tanks don’t have classified armor information). We can make educated assumptions of what may has changed, been upgraded from previous iterations if we know the previous armor values/layout! But to say just because something is heavier it is more armored than another tank isn’t reasonable/accurate to reality.

The Tiger II should have a 300mm effective turret and 250mm effective hull considering it’s much heavier and larger than IS-4M. Why does the IS-4M have a much thicker and effective armor protection (we know why but you get the idea).

That looks more like a MK 4 hull with a MK 1 turret. I don’t think they are referencing the MK 3 hull which is just cast with at most a thin addon appliqué. I wish there was a way to realistically make the MK 3 within reason better protected as I own the prem one. But at the same time I just think it should go down in BR (obviously remove the strong round replace it with an M829 equivalent or less), and we should decompress the ranks more. Also ngl I think 3Bm42 and 3Bm60 show up way too early in the Soviet tree. Which can make gameplay not feel too good.

Merkava 4 (all) armor values too low and mislabeled. // Gaijin.net // Issues

Gaijin directly stated that the main nerf to its armor is correlated to it being this light when it was implemented from the Dev Server. Gaijin confidently believes that the Merkava requires more weight to have stronger armor, which has been accepted by Gaijin as true in this report, dating back 4-5 years.

The IS-4M actually skimps on armor in key areas more than the King Tiger does, while using more intelligent armor construction, and the King Tiger was already using lower-quality, impure steel. So that comparison doesn’t hold up well.

Bringing the Merkava into this is even less fair. The Merkava is noticeably larger than the Abrams overall, yet it doesn’t cut corners on armor anywhere. In fact, it’s more heavily armored across more areas and provides significantly better overall coverage. These tanks were built under completely different constraints and design priorities, so they’re simply not comparable.

That said, I feel like this diagram is a bit too exaggerated.

If anything, my impression is that this ERA system twists the short 3BM42 projectile core, allowing the spacious engine compartment to absorb the fragments, which are then barely stopped by the armor in front of the crew compartment. Well, it doesn’t seem likely, but…

Since the armor values in this diagram fluctuate wildly, I suspect it’s not cast armor.

1 Like


Please play other nations.

With that aside, saying 2A5 is better than Abrams is lmao. It is worse than Abrams in every single way besides turret armor. Nothing more needs to be said there.

As for BVM and T-90M, these are just the classic words of someone who doesnt know what hes talking about. T-90M is a joke of a tank, being terrible in every category except armor, and newsflash, armor isn’t meta when you sacrifice EVERYTHING for it. BVM is better than T-90M by far, but its still not particularly great, still boasting a mid reload, terrible reverse, depression, etc.

I just realized what I replied to was over a year old. Whoops.

1 Like

Can u share the whole document?

Low quality steel isn’t factored in War Thunder anymore as German mains complained. It doesn’t really skimp out, it’s genuinely smaller. There isn’t much tricks in regards to the weight. However a list of them are this: the two front corners which DOES save TONS of weight on their own with sacrifice to space. Another is the fact it’s a rear mounted transmission, shortens the tank, provides more space, and the rear of the deck can be shortened over the transmission to save more weight &
space.

The hull front is only 10mm less, 20mm more in certain areas, the side armor is stronger by double than the Tiger II, IS-4M has a 200mm all round the turret where the Tiger II only has 80mm, and IS-4M with 250mm on the face while the Tiger II only has 185mm at best. The only places the armor really is meaningfully thinner than the Tiger II H is the roof armor above the breech. Which isn’t skimping out. Weight & size generally itself doesn’t dictate protection.

They saved weight with a handful of neat tricks. They were smart about the vehicle layout, and learned from previous designs what they wanted in a heavy tank that the IS-2 and IS-3 didn’t fulfill.

Overall, if we are generalizing it’s really the fact the IS-4M has smaller dimensions/is shorter. The shorter your tank is the more armor you can chunk in certain areas that you feel needed it. They could’ve saved even more weight using the 100mm or long 85mm cannon. Or hell making the rear turret armor more like 100mm. With that you can make it have a higher HP/T or add 100mm to the front (albeit the suspension would cry and need reinforcements. They did a good job, one of the best jobs of armor design one can do in that time period other than the IS-6 and 7!

If they do increase the weight to 80 tons (from an hypothetical 64-65 tons) and go from their on the armor buffs that’s a 20-25% increase to the KE. I don’t think that’s worth the massive tank in mobility… Assuming you’re starting with 350mm that goes to about 427mm which isn’t stopping mango at most distances unfortunately. It’s right below barely useful.

But maybe the armor would finally be useful against CE? But with mobility that makes the old challengers look like a T-80U in comparison. I personally don’t see that as worth. You have to think they aren’t going to necessarily go the extra mile on things.

I wish it would straight up just get a CE, and HE resistance buff with no weight multiplier increase to retain mobility. Maybe a KE buff so you can angle more often! Because adding almost 18 tons just sounds like it would be a nightmare to play. Even if it got useable armor being that slow just puts you at so much risk at top tier. Especially when you don’t have 10 deg gun depression, and still have the artificial nato breach weakspot size. That’s essentially a worse Challenger with the worse HP/T at TT + good HE.

I mean, aluminum (which is common in engine and transmission parts to keep weight down while keeping structural integrity) doesn’t really affect reasonably strong APFSDS. Maybe full caliber it has a chance? But I do think it over-performs against things like the 130mm cannon (or did) as I don’t think an engine block is stopping that. The Ferdinand would be the best MBT in the world of that were true.

The weight of these vehicles doesn’t come from War Thunder. It comes from the real vehicle.

You are significantly underselling just how much weight can be saved by compact slopes compared to straight flat plates.

Yes.

An IS-4M made in the 1950s should not be compared to modern MBTs. Technological advancements have made this absurd as modern tanks rarely use the same materials found on those in WW2.

The Merkava 4, in its current state, can outpace an Abrams and Leopard thanks to its transmission. I would rather be tanky in a hull-down several kilometers away over lolpennable at 2km distance. If I want to play an MBT that can’t eat APFSDS, I’ll play my Type 10.

The Challenger doesn’t have a transmission on par with the Merkava 4. Even with added weight, the Merkava will be more mobile.

Seriously though. If you don’t have the Merkava 4, you won’t understand what I mean, but it’s nasty how good that transmission is.

They did the opposite when the LMUR was added, so it now has less armor.

If the turret could at least stop 600mm of KE, it would be sufficient.

A nightmare to play is knowing you can’t even stop tanks 3 BR lower than you frontally, while also being unable to stop 9.7 missiles.

The Merkava, if set to 80 tons, would have a slightly worse HP/T at 18.75 (Lightest CR2 has 19.5) but with a significantly stronger transmission and armor layout. It would also retain it’s versatile ammunition kit. It should also be noted that the Trunnion coming next patch adds 150mm of RHA protection to the breech, making it capable of stopping DM53 on the cheek by the trunnion, but not the mantlet itself.

It would also be helpful if they could plug the hole in the right side of the cheek, it’s not supposed to be empty like it’s currently modeled.
Merkava mk4 turret no composite blurred face

1 Like

image

I am uncertain why your image is censored. The publicly available one isn’t.

I don’t like posting pictures of strangers faces online, personal preference is all :) The other bit is just in case

Here’s a thought exercise we are going to do before discussing angles. Answer this: Why do you think the T-44 weighed less than the T-34-85 31 tons < 32.2 tons, and had a far superior armor profile? It’s not because “muh angle more”.

The T-44 has 2 extra degrees frontally going from 45mm @ 60 deg to 90mm @ 62 deg HUGE difference in only thickness.

The side hull armor goes from 45mm @ 48 degrees to 75mm @ 0 degrees.

Rear hull armor goes from 45mm @ 40 deg to 45mm at 17 deg. With basically the same turret as the T-34-85.

The T-44 gains 2 degrees while losing a total of 50 deg of angling across the board. So where tf did all this weight go?? Nicolas Moran will even tell you that having a rear mounted transmission/transmission next to the engine helps lower the profile of the tank, and saves weight overall not just because the transmission can be more compact as it doesn’t need tooling and a long drive shaft. But also because it saves SPACE, as you don’t need to create space for said drive shaft on top of the suspension.

Type of suspension can also save space, and eight bit that’s a different conversation. Onto the IS-4M and Tiger II since we are here.

IS-4M UFP: 140mm @ 62 deg. Tiger II UFP 150mm @ 50 deg.

IS-4M USP: 140mn @ 30 deg. Tiger II USP 80mm @ 24 deg.

IS-4M turret side armor 200mm cast @ 33 deg. Tiger II 80 RHA @ 30 deg.

IS-4M turret face 250mm cast @ 15 deg. Tiger II 185mm RHA @ 10 deg.

IS-4M turret side front 200mm cast @ 72 deg, Tiger II turret side frontally is 80mm RHA @ 72 deg…

A total of 21 deg of difference overall.

The Tiger II certainly isn’t flat. The IS-4M is more angular (and curved) but not by much. Notice how many of these plates are THICKER than on the Tiger II. That’s heavy. Usually when you angle armor it’s so that you don’t need it to be as thick so the LOS thickness can make up for it. The IS-4M has FAR thicker armor even UNANGLED. The IS-4M gets more weight savings from its transmission being reset mounted, it being shorter, and having one less crew member the designer has to make space for.

There isn’t much room to slope the Tiger II more than it already is, even if you managed to squeeze 10-20 more degrees in some places and eliminate a crew member. It would be the same weight, bigger, with still LESS PROTECTION. We are talking a 10~ ton difference if we use the heavier armored versions of the Tiger II, 68.5 if we use the pre production turret. Angling panels more would only save around 3-4 tons at best from what I’m looking at.

I’m telling you… It isn’t the angles. Even if you take away 21 degs of angling it’s still better protected than the Tiger II. Armor quality doesn’t change the weight here. I brought up the armor quality not being present in War Thunder is because the Tiger II in its BEST configuration is still less protected. Even if we do what you said and changed it IRL it’s still worse off than the IS-4M… Period.

Point made, thanks for reading my Ted Talk. TL;DR it’s not angling, that math magically isn’t sound, and doesn’t add up no matter how you slice it.

I just stated it’s immune to everything most Top Tier MBTs are immune to missile wise. Being better than everything except a T-90M in some respects. Also the turret can stop 3bm42 in many zones, 3bm46 can just about start getting through with still the turret which tricky at relatively close range. What do you mean can’t stop tanks 3 BRs lower, it can. It struggles windy Top Tier level rounds. Even 3Bm60 can’t go through the upper side armor angled… Hell M829A2 struggles to do so reliably unless you go past 28 deg. BTW IM TALKING ABOUT THE LIC which has more hull armor than the Merkava MK 4M (idk about the 4B).

I don’t think 600mm with zones still being 222mm around it is worth 18.75 HP/T. I’d rather 23 HP/T at that rate. Because if you didn’t read 3Bm60 would end up having the same weakspots around the Merkava with it only making a noticeable difference if you’re angling and actually trying to make a good shot on you hard.! Which is something you can sorta already do?

Losing map control just seems like an unworthy price to pay. Gaijin may just give us that. Because no matter what you’ll still get one shotted through the UFP, and LFP. The rounds they add in future will only be stronger.

Nuh uh, it’s 24 HP/T for the LIGHTEST challenger 2. 20.5 HP/T for the regular edition. I’m telling you 18.75 HP/T is HELL. Really good players can do good in it currently. But to have a UFP the size of Texas be 411mm thick for a massive hit to mobility just feels extremely not worth it. It would be a worse TES @ 12.3-12.7 BR. I already think it should go down in BR but gosh.

I’m not going to continue to converse with you if you bring up the IS-4M and Tiger 2 in a Merkava 4 discussion again. It is not even remotely close to a situation, nor are they even the same type of vehicle. There is a 70-year age gap between them.

It’s a waste of time to discuss such a strawman.