It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Merkava 4 invincible!?!?!??!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
yes bu the merkava shouldve been tested against top attack muitions not like it has no capability at all. it should be tough tod efeat but yea Hellifres and AGM 65 MAveircka s well a TOWSand LOSATS would destroy it
It could probalbly stopa javelin though. and its slow. whehhe with the latest M829E3 penetrator 960 mm at 2000m it would destroy the tank. Do u guys noe any other weak spots on a tank besides the top and and bottom. thanx




posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Do u guys noe any other weak spots on a tank besides the top and and bottom. thanx


The back of the turret is not as well armored as the front, and generally the entire back of a tank is pretty vulnerable.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

The back of the turret is not as well armored as the front, and generally the entire back of a tank is pretty vulnerable.


Im not surprise that the back side is always weak, even the chances of being flanked and attacked is always greater, even in guerilla warfare, but thats how things work when we can't add armor on all sides without trading off speed and fuel efficiency, not to mention able to be transported easily.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
yes bu the merkava shouldve been tested against top attack muitions not like it has no capability at all. it should be tough tod efeat but yea Hellifres and AGM 65 MAveircka s well a TOWSand LOSATS would destroy it
It could probalbly stopa javelin though. and its slow. whehhe with the latest M829E3 penetrator 960 mm at 2000m it would destroy the tank. Do u guys noe any other weak spots on a tank besides the top and and bottom. thanx


the israeli tank especially is ultra vunrable from the back becuase its moved its engine into the front. usally the engine provides the "extra" protection at the back of the tank where the armour is slightly less then the front .


the biggest weak point on any tank is the tracks once they are broken which can easily be done with a mine with only 5kg HE the tank is a sitting duck altough you will need to watch out for the cannon and machine guns but you could call in artillery or airstrikes to bomb the crap out of it or hit it with 120mm mortars or even wire guided missiles.

also with modern tanks if you can sniper the visual system with a 12.7(.50bmg) anti material rifle you pretty much left them blind they will only have a small hatch to look through while driving this makes there life very hard and makes them more vulnrabal to attacks becuase they cant use there thermal vision to detect anti-tank crews and rpg personal but you must watch out for infantry screens who usally accompny the tanks they can come in as snipers who pre secure the areas before the tanks roll in and the snipers take positions until the tanks have rolled through safely.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Is there a possibility that a tank with a V-shaped hull would help reduce chances of being destroyed by IEDs or anti-tank mines? That sounds simple enough, without having to do a lot of R&D to make tanks resist IEDs and anti tank mines.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Im not surprise that the back side is always weak, even the chances of being flanked and attacked is always greater, even in guerilla warfare, but thats how things work when we can't add armor on all sides without trading off speed and fuel efficiency, not to mention able to be transported easily.


Your right you could make a 80 ton behemoth with no weak points but it would crawl along the ground and have very short legs. Not to mention mobility and transportation of such a tank would be a nightmare for any country.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Is there a possibility that a tank with a V-shaped hull would help reduce chances of being destroyed by IEDs or anti-tank mines?


Well, considering that in Iraq it took three 155mmm shells combined with other explosives to damage an Abrams I don't see the urgent need for it. Besides, depending on the angle of the hull it could reduce crew room inside the hull.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Is there a possibility that a tank with a V-shaped hull would help reduce chances of being destroyed by IEDs or anti-tank mines?


Well, considering that in Iraq it took three 155mmm shells combined with other explosives to damage an Abrams I don't see the urgent need for it. Besides, depending on the angle of the hull it could reduce crew room inside the hull.


an abrams took 3 155mmshells damn that DU armor is strong by the way got any links to back up your statement (sarcesm)



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   
heres how Merkavas would be hit in the back

1JSf use EOTS (ground targeting mode) to find tanks and get positions and direction)
2Data is transmitted
3infantry asrmed with javelin



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   
o crap read this article it sez it can survive Du rounds and ATGM www.acpr.org.il...



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Actually, in GW1 it was an M1 Abrams that was stuck in the mud vs three T-72s using Heat and Sabot rounds. The M1 destroyed all three Iraqi tanks, and in return they were able to hit it with a Sabot round that cause slight damage to the armor of the Abrams.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Actually, in GW1 it was an M1 Abrams that was stuck in the mud vs three T-72s using Heat and Sabot rounds. The M1 destroyed all three Iraqi tanks, and in return they were able to hit it with a Sabot round that cause slight damage to the armor of the Abrams.


well to be fair the t-72 the iraqis had used a 105mm? cannon combined with the fact americans had a bigger 120mm cannon and used depleated uranium ammo against iraqi tanks which didnt even have any additonal composite/ERA armour.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
The T-72 is armed with a 125mm gun - BUT it was firing steel sabot load , as they made them themselves and didn`t have russian rounds.

LOSAT isn`t in service yet - and i wouldn`t want to be in a humvee after firing one thank you - not with the incoming you`ll get.

Also the armour fielded by the 1991 M1A1 doesn`t have DU in it - its just plain old mkl1 british chobham - they added DU later on (M1A1D)


what could well be interesting is a face off between this tank and the M1A1 (and M1A2) of the egyptian army.

[edit on 21/3/06 by Harlequin]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
o crap read this article it sez it can survive Du rounds and ATGM www.acpr.org.il...


no tank can survive hits from DU shells all though some tanks may be more resistant to them at certain angles such as the front if hit at an odd angle the sabot might deflect but if hit in correct angle it will penentrate 100% of the time from what i understand unless somebody has other info about DU not being able to penentrate a tank with direct hits. but if the DU shell hits in certain areas you can kiss the tank good bye.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   
The only tank i give a far chance of bouncing DU is the Dorchester equipped Chamllenger 2 - armour on the turret is resistant to 960mm kinetic - which is on the money for the armour pen of the latest DU rounds fired by teh Abrams.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Well it would be nice if you could point out that the Abrams and Challenger armor levels are classified, so is the penetration capability of the M829E3 round. However estimates put the armor on M1A2 SEP at 960 mm too, I’m curious at what penetration levels do estimates put the CHARM 3 at?



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
The Palestinians were able to destroy 2-3 Merkava tanks (if I recall correctly). They filled a water boiler with 100KG of explosives and buried it in a location that had high traffic (or high expected traffic), then detonated it when the tank passed over it. I think this was a Merkava 3 though.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
west point


the majority tank as you know is the M1A1D with around 900mm on its turret - the m1A2 and SEP are going to be limited in number


anyway - CHARM3 IIRC is in the same class as the M829A3 , which is varying between 765mm up to and beyond 960mm



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Even Abrams have been knocked out by small calibre (eg fratricide incidents with Bradley's) or RPGs firing at the side/rear or large mines (3 stacked as I recall).

It simply isn't possible to carry enough armor to give all-round protection.
Active protection - defeating threats before they hit - might just about do it, but don't hold your breath - and expect the treat to evolve too.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Looks like a great tank. But invincible? No way. No tank is unbeatable.

In a symmetrical fight the way a tank is designed for, some come closer to being invincible, but none are even close to 100%. But the moment the tank is in an asymmetrical situation (Abrams in the back streets of Baghdad) the survivability goes dramatically down.

Ill take my Abrams thank you (with the urban combat upgrades of course)



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join