Merkava 4B/M Discussion Thread

[Datboichris69 168]

Now that the Merkava 4 is here (both the B and M!!) we can discuss it and its performance.

for starters, 
I've noticed that it only has gen 1 gunner thermals, and im pretty sure it has CITV too. can anyone confirm?

[Omeroses 13]

1 hour ago, Datboichris69 said:

I've noticed that it only has gen 1 gunner thermals, and im pretty sure it has CITV too. can anyone confirm?

i hope this is a place holder for the dev server, it 100% should have at least gen2 for gunner + commander.

does anyone know/have sources on the gunner optics? all merkavas having fixed 8x is pain 

[Datboichris69 168]

59 minutes ago, Omeroses said:

i hope this is a place holder for the dev server, it 100% should have at least gen2 for gunner + commander.

does anyone know/have sources on the gunner optics? all merkavas having fixed 8x is pain 

yeah...
we can only hope at this point

[Zucc_Boi 656]

It makes absolutely no sense for the Mark 4 to have a gen 1 or gen 2 gunner and commander sights. They have gone through extensive FCS upgrades over the years. 

 

The thermals can be in black-white or black-green (green is NOT low light intensifier).

 

 

 

The images appear very clear, even on the last one which shows  a ranging of almost 10km.

[Ariesv 692]

I'm concerned that they'll set the armor to Mk. 3D levels of uselessness.

Does anyone have useful sources (for bug reports) regarding the Mk. 4 armor's effectiveness against apfsds specifically?

[yoyolast 1,708]

5 minutes ago, Ariesv said:

Does anyone have useful sources (for bug reports) regarding the Mk. 4 armor's effectiveness against apfsds specifically?

Merk 4 armor effectiveness is classified unfortunately.

[StaszekJones 853]

I dont play mk4 still, but i see on premium mk2 there is still same BUG - when something hit in to track by side (like 45 degrees), the debris/fragments ignores fact there is a engine + 35mm of armor plate.

And you can be killed like this by small calibers guns (30mm Falcon or 20mm Tunguska, same effect).

[Zucc_Boi 656]

Exhibit 1:

Merkava 3D side turret armor. 

Spoiler

 

Exhibit 2:

Merkava 4A side turret armor.

Spoiler

 

Exhibit 3:

Damaged Merkava 4A with exposed side hull and turret armor.

Spoiler

 

Exhibit 4:

Merkava 4M with open hull front armor module.

Spoiler

 

Exhibit 5:

Close up on exhibit 4.

Spoiler

 

Exhibit 6:

Merkava 4B turret side armor.

Spoiler

 

Exhibit 7:

Merkava 4B or 4M with lifted hull front armor module.

Spoiler

 

Exhibit 8:

Merkava 4M with removed side armor module.

Spoiler

 

Exhibit 9:

Merkava 4M showing different bolt patterns on turret armor.

Spoiler

 

Exhibit 10:

Merkava 4B or 4M turret side module showing "T6 explosive series 01 05 TZ" (TZ could possibly be acronym for IMI which is now an Elbit subsidiary.

Spoiler

 

Exhibit 11:

Merkava 4B or 4M hull front module showing "Explosive series 01 11 Ramta" (Ramta is a division of IAI).

Spoiler

 

Exhibit 12:

Merkava 4M 400 turret front module. This time we see the writing "Explosive series 01 17 TZ" on one, with some writing redacted. 

On the other we see the entire writing redacted but this time whatever was there, was written differently. 

We also see that the two modules have different patterns between bolts. Seemingly minor, but rarely done outside the scope of a larger upgrade. 

Finally we see within the modules large metal frames as if to hold something particularly heavy, or to withstand a strong force. This could indicate a violent (reactive) and heavy armor suitable for KE.

(Can't add spoilers on edit, sorry).

 

Putting these photos here, will possibly write a post soon.

Edited June 14, 2022 by Zucc_Boi

[Ariesv 692]

1 hour ago, yoyolast said:

Merk 4 armor effectiveness is classified unfortunately.

Well exact values unfortunately yes; I was more hoping for official-ish sources that mention it being effective against kinetic threats in a more general manner.

[Zucc_Boi 656]

Claim 1: 

Merkava 3D armor, and Mark 4A armor, are related, but not the same.

 

Proof: 

Exhibits 1 and 3 show a much more densely packed layers in the Mark 4A than in the Mark 3D. Difference in spacing indicates armor functions somewhat differently. At the very least, they cannot have the same efficiency for the same volume.

 

Claim 2:

Merkava 4A and 4B have different armor and should not be treated the same.

 

Proof:

Exhibits 2, 6, and 7 show a certain pattern for the outer casing on the Mark 4A's turret armor modules, and the absence of any pattern on the Mark 4B and 4M, indicating some changes to the armor modules were made.

The Mark 4B's debut also coincides with the remarks made about making adjustments to make armor modules less vulnerable to repeated hits as seen in Lebanon.

 

Claim 3: 

Hull front (UFP) is actually well armored and not a major weak spot.

 

Proof: 

Exhibits 4, 5, and 7 show a substantial amount of armor on the hull front. 

Following British doctrine and basic analysis from combat, the LFP was left unprotected. The UFP however, has only a minor vulnerable area and the rest is quite well armored. Couple this with the fact we've seen the Merkava has frontal KE optimization on claim 4 and it becomes quite potent against some APFSDS.

 

Claim 4: 

Merkava 4 variants have front armor KE optimization.

 

Proof:

Exhibit 9 shows the bolts on the lower part of the turret armor are arranged differently on the front section than on the back section. This indicates some difference between the front modules, and the side modules.

Exhibit 10 shows an unknown series 01 05 reactive armor of 1 manufacturer, and exhibit 11 shows an unknown series 01 11 reactive armor of another manufacturer. The first for the side armor, and the latter for the front armor.

The manufacturers themselves are meaningful here, as this may indicate different metals and materials in the product, e.g Elbit is the only one with tungsten work capabilities.

Also, the fact a side module has a different armor than a front module, is strong evidence for a front KE bias.

The caveat here is that we cannot confirm that the two modules coexist on the same tanks. For all we know, the Merkava 4 tanks could have undergone multiple different armor upgrades over their life, but that would only further prove the Merkava 4A and Merkava 4B/M should not have the same armor values.

 

Another factor here is that Rafael still develops and produces armor with a KE bias.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2022 by Zucc_Boi

[Ariesv 692]

Alas, they have butchered the Merkava 4s' armor and for some reason stuck both of them at 11.0. 
Turret front is 450-500mm vs KE and 900-1000 vs CE

Hull front is 250-350mm vs KE and 700-800 vs CE

 

Hull and turret sides straight on are 500-600 CE and ~300 KE. 

 

At least as far as the 4B goes it's basically a tank with M1A1 levels of frontal armor and worse mobility at 11.0. I'm not even sure the Trophy system provides enough justification for 11.0 since it (accurately) only shoots down missiles.

On the upside we did get M338; but with only 610mm of penetration I'm not sure how much effect it will actually have. Especially since for no apparent reason the reload on the Merkava's is still 6.7s max: it even has a turret ammo rack this time making all the more bizarre.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Ariesv

[_Wam_ 153]

this tank cant stop any top tier rounds.. that sux ALOT... wonder why you would grind this tank..  also horrible turret traverse compared to NATO MBTS.  i really cant see why any would play this house.. every round goes trough it

[Zucc_Boi 656]

The Merkava 4 tanks are awfully implemented with a lot of wrong data.

For example gunner and TC have a German EMES-15 sight which was never used on the Merkava, and is gen 2 instead of gen 3.

 

The driver's thermal sights on the Merkava 4s are modeled as NVDs.

Armor is way off. A Kornet in game can pierce the turret with ease. A Kornet IRL will barely scratch it.

[Alan_Tovarishch 860]

1 hour ago, Zucc_Boi said:

Armor is way off. A Kornet in game can pierce the turret with ease. A Kornet IRL will barely scratch it.

I feel we should coordinate for making bug reports on the armor. Not only its effectiveness but at some places its geometry as well.

The most important problem is that Gj considers all of the Mk.4 armor as NERA and gives it a standard (low) ingame multiplier. Although we know from various accounts that Merkava 4 uses neither NERA nor ERA but newer (back in 2000s) that i well remember were described by Tamir Eshel way back in the day as "hybrid armor between NERA and ERA". Then we got the Rafael patent from 2008 describing SLERA and NxRA as having performances between NERA and ERA. From photographical pictures we know that pretty much every armor module on the Merk.4 has some sort of explosives embedded (pointing to SLERA), however the UFP doesn´t feature the "explosive" warning labelling, pointing to NxRA. Knowing that both types of armor are much more effective than NERA of the same time period/technological level pero mass/volume we can make a case for Gaijin to reestimate the modifiers it uses for the Merk.4s in game. In addition, we have numerous claims coming straight from IDF sources that the tank is much heavier than 65 metric tons (the 4M is stated in official videos of the Armor Corps to be 80 metric tons in weight). With that kind of weight in mind it becomes very credible that the tank has a lower top speed than other modern tanks which have comparable horse power. So, if Gj fixed things in this way the Merk 4s ingame would trade mobility performance for much better armor. Finally, we have combat record. According again to Tamir Eshel writing for Defence Update a long time ago after the 2006 Lebanon War, the Merkava 4s there were being engaged almost exclusively with Kornets and we know of only 2  verified penetrations into the troop compartment which resulted in catastrophic destructions, the impacted zone was the side hull to the back of the tank right to the ammo racks. Other Merk 4s were damaged but not penetrated (several pictures floating around for many years now), knowing that the most likely missiles were Kornets, we can make a case for a CE protection of at least 1200-1500mm over 180º arc of the turret. KE protection levels is much harder to argue for, but the sheer volume and weight of the armor together with the claims by Rafael should indicate that the front of the turret should be protected against the best APFSDS of the early-mid 2000s.

On the other topic, the geometry itself of the armor modules. We know again from photographical evidence that the back module of the UFP,the section behind the quick access "hatch" is clearly thicker.

Lastly, and i don´t know if its a bug or not, the side turret module ingame has reduced armor to accomodate the APS and i don´t know how realistic is that.
 

[_Wam_ 153]

27 minutes ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

I feel we should coordinate for making bug reports on the armor. Not only its effectiveness but at some places its geometry as well.

The most important problem is that Gj considers all of the Mk.4 armor as NERA and gives it a standard (low) ingame multiplier. Although we know from various accounts that Merkava 4 uses neither NERA nor ERA but newer (back in 2000s) that i well remember were described by Tamir Eshel way back in the day as "hybrid armor between NERA and ERA". Then we got the Rafael patent from 2008 describing SLERA and NxRA as having performances between NERA and ERA. From photographical pictures we know that pretty much every armor module on the Merk.4 has some sort of explosives embedded (pointing to SLERA), however the UFP doesn´t feature the "explosive" warning labelling, pointing to NxRA. Knowing that both types of armor are much more effective than NERA of the same time period/technological level pero mass/volume we can make a case for Gaijin to reestimate the modifiers it uses for the Merk.4s in game. In addition, we have numerous claims coming straight from IDF sources that the tank is much heavier than 65 metric tons (the 4M is stated in official videos of the Armor Corps to be 80 metric tons in weight). With that kind of weight in mind it becomes very credible that the tank has a lower top speed than other modern tanks which have comparable horse power. So, if Gj fixed things in this way the Merk 4s ingame would trade mobility performance for much better armor. Finally, we have combat record. According again to Tamir Eshel writing for Defence Update a long time ago after the 2006 Lebanon War, the Merkava 4s there were being engaged almost exclusively with Kornets and we know of only 2  verified penetrations into the troop compartment which resulted in catastrophic destructions, the impacted zone was the side hull to the back of the tank right to the ammo racks. Other Merk 4s were damaged but not penetrated (several pictures floating around for many years now), knowing that the most likely missiles were Kornets, we can make a case for a CE protection of at least 1200-1500mm over 180º arc of the turret. KE protection levels is much harder to argue for, but the sheer volume and weight of the armor together with the claims by Rafael should indicate that the front of the turret should be protected against the best APFSDS of the early-mid 2000s.

On the other topic, the geometry itself of the armor modules. We know again from photographical evidence that the back module of the UFP,the section behind the quick access "hatch" is clearly thicker.

Lastly, and i don´t know if its a bug or not, the side turret module ingame has reduced armor to accomodate the APS and i don´t know how realistic is that.
 

gl with that.. Type 10 is still a buss, and still no turret armor..  this is BS by gaijin.. nothing is working, its a **** update, only upside is they did not mess up sounds this time 

[Alan_Tovarishch 860]

20 minutes ago, _Wam_ said:

gl with that.. Type 10 is still a buss, and still no turret armor..  this is BS by gaijin.. nothing is working, its a **** update, only upside is they did not mess up sounds this time 

Well, we have to be at least somewhat optimistic. We have much more and better sources on Merk 4 than of Type 10.

[_Wam_ 153]

35 minutes ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

Well, we have to be at least somewhat optimistic. We have much more and better sources on Merk 4 than of Type 10.

i would disagree on that, go read the japan type 10 forum, they have given extensive info and documentation.. and they cant even make it faster then the type 90.. i know optimistic, but when you have played this game for so long you know how things are rolling. 

[Zucc_Boi 656]

Gaijin seems to have thrown in random values at everything out of balance considerations, and intentionally neglected realism. 

[XarachiX 389]

 

 

Hello, I'm wondering if the Merkava Mk.4 series can be upgraded even further and propose that the IronVision HMD be a researchable module. While the technology is still in a testing phase it seems Israel is interested enough to keep using it and upgrading it further. The HMD gives a full 360 degree display to the tank driver and provides real time data to him for enhanced situational awareness. However this feature would be very limited in itself in War Thunder, but the main thing I would like to see is the possibility of having thermal imaging in 3rd person view. The same technology used here is said to be the same on the F-35 and some attack helicopters, which I assume is the Apache's PNVS/TADS-FLIR system which provides a similar thermal imaging display to Apache pilots.

 

https://elbitsystems.com/media/IronVision_1_Web.pdf

 

IronVision HMD

Spoiler

 

PNVS/TADS-FLIR on the Apache

F-35 HMD representing in-picture FLIR imaging

 

While the IronVision HMD is still in trial, it seems like they plan on incorporating it into their Merkava Mk.4 tanks until further notice. In conclusion, I would like to see this as a researchable module that allows you to use thermal imaging in the 3rd person view, which would possibly make the Merkava Mk.4 some of the best tanks in the game in terms of situational awareness. I would like to see BR decompression up to the BR of 11.3/11.7 before having something like this in-game, as it would make the Merkava Mk.4 some of the best tanks in the game.

Edited March 25, 2022 by XarachiX

[Alan_Tovarishch 860]

30 minutes ago, XarachiX said:

Hello, I'm wondering if the Merkava Mk.4 series can be upgraded even further and propose that the IronVision HMD be a researchable module. 

Current Merkava models don´t feature Iron Vision which is being integrated in a newer Merkava 4 model ("Merkava 4 Barak") under development.

[XarachiX 389]

1 minute ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

Current Merkava models don´t feature Iron Vision which is being integrated in a newer Merkava 4 model ("Merkava 4 Barak") under development.

Didn't realize there was another version, thanks for clarification 

[Zucc_Boi 656]

The Merkava 4 Barak is said to receive the IronVision, and due to an abundance of upgrades it should be its own distinct vehicle.

Gaijin decided to add 3 Merkava 4 variants to the game so far:

Mark 4B, 4M, and LIC.

What Gaijin missed so far is:

Mark 4A and Mark 4M 400.

 

The Mark 4M 400 differs by having a new BMS, supposedly new FCS, improvements to the APS (optical sensors), and around when it entered service the 80 ton figure was thrown liberally.

 

So my guess is there are going to be a total of 6 Merkava 4 variants (which is bad IMO) including the Barak.

Gaijin adding the LIC which adds nothing of value and even messes up the optics because of a metallic mesh cover, pretty much proves they're looking for quantity and not substance. Which is odd because they could have added quantity with IFVs for top tier lineup.

 

Funny thing, the IronVision debuted years ago, and is mature enough for fielding by now, but it lost in the Carmel program.

Edited March 25, 2022 by Zucc_Boi

[Alan_Tovarishch 860]

25 minutes ago, Zucc_Boi said:

The Mark 4M 400 differs by having a new BMS, supposedly new FCS, improvements to the APS (optical sensors), and around when it entered service the 80 ton figure was thrown liberally.

 

So my guess is there are going to be a total of 6 Merkava 4 variants (which is bad IMO) including the Barak.

Though it begs the question of how much the 400 model differs from previous ones  that the 80t figure is being made public. My guess is that the initial model was already heavier than 70t and more likely closer to 80t since Trophy adds at least about 2t of weight to a tank. Nevertheless, a high weight figure is favorable to argue for higher armor effectiveness estimates, even more when we know for sure that the modules should have better performance than contemporaneous NERA arrays per weight.

On the other hand, i don´t see a problem with Gj including as many Merks.4 as possible but having at least 2-3 Merkava 3s is more urgent.

[CyrusJackson 1,823]

The turret wonky armor is due to Gaijin absurd logic of NERA resistance. The "External composite armour with NERA elements" has a 0.10x modifier against KE... a smaller protection ratio against KE than rubber... Who would have thought than stacking tires on top of one another would give you better protection than the Merkava composite armor. Only in Gaijin's world I guess.

 

 Our best bet to get that changed I would say is to prove that the armor is an actual full fledged composite rather than a cheap addon armor. Giving example of it stopping Kornet could also help.

 

Regarding thermal quality, if the T-80BVM with the Sosna-U gets 3rd generation thermal(Why is that still even a thing btw??), there's absolutely no reason for the Merkava 4 to get Gen 2. We only need to find documentation to prove that it has a last gen thermal now. Same for the Merk using placeholder EMES-15. Gaijin tends to be actually pretty quick usually when it comes down to fixing sight magnification and thermals.

Edited March 25, 2022 by CyrusJackson

[Zucc_Boi 656]

I can't find the proof since Elbit's catalog changed and many specific items were delisted in favor of modular items. I can only prove it makes 3rd gen thermals and beyond.

We've heard references of the Merkava 4 getting upgraded sights, and even seen it, so gen 2 makes no sense on yet another level.

 

I've posted pics here. Could these prove 3rd gen thermals?

Edited March 25, 2022 by Zucc_Boi