If it got turret and UFP armor that stops all darts in the game then I’d lose it’s biggest con by far. At that point it would be the strongest tank in the game, as it would have other advantages over tanks like 2A7, such as no weird depression angles blocking your barrel from going down, being able to side scrape much more effectively due to the engine in the front, 5s reload, etc.
Considering Merkava 4s have 22-23 HP/t only the 2E would have slightly better mobility than them, while other Challengers would be far behind in mobility department.
Even if it was the strongest tank in the game, I really doubt it would change anything, you still get matches where there are only 6 or 7 nations participating at top tier and I dont think anyone is grinding with just magachs and sho´ts just to arrive at a top tier thats like america´s just without the spaa and a prettier looking tank…
As far as I know, the addition of armor would of course mean that the tank would weigh the 80 tons everyone says it weighs. Taking that into account, it would be slower with roughly 18.75 HP/ton (if I’ve done the maths correctly).
How or why would that make it heavier? A fully combat loaded Merkava weighs around 66 tons. Its about making the armor accurate.
From what I can see, you want it to get armor that’s equal or better than that of 2A7 while having no other disadvantages bar smaller ammo number behind a blowout panel and spall liners. Even in the current state, Merkava 4s have some advantages over tanks such as 2A7, so giving them similar/better armor would make them better than tanks that are already too much for 12.0.
As I said, I wouldn’t mind seeing armor improvements for mainly the turret (2A7 level), with UFP being able to tank some hits from worse shells like 3BM46 and such. That should be more than plenty.
I don’t know about that I had heard that the Merkavas wighed 80 tons. Although I find it hard to believe that such a big tank with armor can weigh ‘only’ 66 tons.
The tank would weigh 84 tons if it got its proper armor.
But 84 tons??? where are you getting these numbers from???
An IDF video once said it was 80 tons. As far as I know, it’s the only source saying its that heavy. IDF does have a history of using buzzwords and whatnot to “twist” things to be different, despite not being so, example being with things like the ROEM 155mm SPH, where they said it was the worlds first “automatic SPH” or something along those lines. Unless more sources exist, I would not trust that, but that’s just in my view
why can china, russia, usa and the 4 nations that get access to 12.0 leopards have tanks with relliable hull and turret armor while the least grinded nation in game needs to comfort with a big practice target? When you come across a T90, Leopard, ZTZ or Abrams you have to turn on your brain for at least a fraction of a second to avoid shooting at anythig that isnt the guntlet, turret ring or LFP. The Merkava already has the biggest LFP with the abrams and it also has the BIGGEST UFP. Also, you dont seem to mind that there is already a tank with the handling of the merkava and armor of a leo 2A7… well there is 2, the 2A7 and the 122+…
its not IDF. Both the ministry of defense and Rafael (the comany that makes the APS) say that a fully combat loaded merkava stay at around 66.5 tons…
I don’t understand the argument that it was made for CE and that then excludes KE protection.
It was designed for both, as mandated in the Chariot project. Using advanced materials and design and is likely why it’s so heavy in real life.
That argument was POSSIBLY appropriate for 1990 tech and manufacturing. That’s 35 years ago.
1 Like
Merkava 4 is okay, imo still better than M1A2. At least you don’t lose your horizontal aiming after enemy looks in your direction. My biggest issue with Israeli top tier is that 99% of time we’re in the same team with America, and against Russia. Should I remind you, how bad lvl 15 Clikcbait players are.
No wonder Israel has the second worst winrate at 12.7, right after… America.
As you can see from my status card, after using Merkava up to this point, I would argue that Merkava is weak.
If you want to criticize me, you must have a higher Merkava record than I do.
What do you see in this game that makes you think it is based on reality?
Even if you could claim that the game is based on reality, there are parts of this game that are absolutely not realistic.
So I don’t think it is wrong to say that the game is bad and should be enhanced OR nerfed, even though it may be different in reality.
Merkava is in a position in WT where armor is suffering, so I would like to see armor strengthened. I don’t see anything wrong with this argument.
There is no doubt that to many civilians, Merkava = weak tank.
Only the designer knows the specific defensive performance of CE armor and KE armor, and since we are playing a game, there should be no problem if these values are increased or decreased slightly.
However, I think there is a limit to this increase or decrease. Although it is better than the Merkava, the Merkava is still thinly armored.
America´s winrate is unforgivable. Having the second best tank in game with that winrate is just a skill issue. Merkava has paper armor, worse penetration and its lineups lack variety and a decent SPAA (the machbet isnt shooting anything down at 12.7) You can see how nations like Japan and France that dont have tanks with anything thats skill numbing relly on skill and have good winrates. Its the same with italy although it has a 2A7. What would make the merkava different from the leclerc other than the leclerc can be supported by a Rafale and a Ito 90? Also, I doubt anyone would grind Israel to get the merkavas. If they were the best tanks in the game, it wouldnt change anything, it would be an american lineup with prettier tanks and cooler camouflaged planes and also lacking a “decent” SPAA. Also, where did you get this numbers from? Is it from the forum or what? Im new to using these kind of things, IS there a war thunder discord server or something?
They don’t better than Mav overall yes but not really second best probably second easiest tank to kill.
America´s problem is literally skill issue, go to 11.3 and all you see is clickbaits, the abrams is already very good. It has gun handling, penetration, mobility and not paper armor (at least in the turret). Israel has no SPAA (Althoug IRL it has the Spyder SR that could easily be added) and paper armor, and again, there is no actual reasons to grind Israel other than being israeli or really liking the merkava, the only difference would be that rare ocassion when you encounter a merkava at 12.0, you would shoot its lower plate or other weakspot instead of shooting anywhere to kill it
The M1 series and the Merkava series suffer from a critical issue known as “shoot the hull anywhere to kill” syndrome.
Dunno where this guy is getting “second best” when there are multiple nations sporting 2A5+ tanks and the BVM + 90M have existed for a long time now.
Im saying the abrams is second best because the Leopard is better and this wouldnt be a problem if literally 4 nations got 12.0 Leopards. The T90M and BVM have easy and relliable weakspots that usually kills or incapacitates them ( the BVM´s turret can be easily penned if not hit on the ERA) and they have the worse reload and reverse speed in the game. Although I hate playing against russia with Israel, if it wasnt for their CAS and my inability to stop it, I wouldnt mind facing T90s and BVMs all the time