Merkava 4 invincible!?!?!??!

how much more ffective do u think the MAverick is than the Hellfire

it says one model ahs a 300lb warhead taht certainly is a lot hevier than the hellfire 's 17lb. So how much more effective do u think it is. www.globalsecurity.org...

imagine if u coverted the 300lb to t tandem warhead (150 lb precursor and 150lb main) ,top attack mode. MMW radar, top attack it would be sick
www.designation-systems.net...
astronautix.com...

wow theres the tandem warhead proposal so how hevy do u think the warheads would be???
is a tandem warhead needed or is a hevy shped charge enough??? can someone please answer my question.

[edit on 21-3-2006 by urmomma158]

The Maverick for anti-tank work carries a 125lb shaped charge which would easily overcome any type of reactive armour.
The Maverick has always been overkill for a tank. The weight of explosives even without being in shaped charged configuration, would be enough to destroy a tank.

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

I know, this however has nothing to do with the capability of the tank. Whether there are 300 SEP or 3000 it has no effect on its armor or gun systems.

yes it does - as the armour on ths M1A1D is different to the M1A2 and the SEP

You’re misunderstanding me, I meant that the number of SEP in service has no bearing on how capable the armor of the SEP is.

I don't think that there is a single tank out there that is indestructable. If there was, what would be the point of fighting against it? What if every country had one? Wars would never end. I think pretty much everything is destructable. And especially now, there just isn't the technology for such a tank.

what would u make of this? www.strategypage.com...

y would the military care if the abrm s fel into iraqi hands?????

Because a lot of the targetting systems, etc, are classified and they were concerned that the Iraqis might pass them on to someone we might end up fighting. If they could either reverse engineer them, or find ways to jam them then our tank crews would be in a world of hurt.

To say alot of the systems on an m1 are classified is an understatement... Even it's chobham outter skin would be worth a small fortune on the international arms market. This isn't even included the newest generation low light enhancement systems or gun stabillization equipment... One M1A2 in good condition would finance literally millions of sets of IED components.

As to an invincible tank... ROFL Even the best western science can mass produce like the chally the german model and the m1a2 are still relativelly easy to reduce to scrap given the right circumstances.

Its got its strengths and weaknesses. Its possibly the most armored tank in the world, it has a decent gun, and it even has a mortar.

Its speed is low though, for a modern tank. The Abram's gun is better too. But both tanks are cool in my opinion. =)

Originally posted by rogue1
The Maverick for anti-tank work carries a 125lb shaped charge which would easily overcome any type of reactive armour.
The Maverick has always been overkill for a tank. The weight of explosives even without being in shaped charged configuration, would be enough to destroy a tank.

i thought the diameter of the missile gave it it's pnetrtation qualities not its warhead weight??????www.fas.org...

does the weight of the HEAT roundhave anytingto do with the the pnetration capability??? or is it just diameter?? also please post links to back up your statement please thank you.

Ok so while the tank can currently deal with threats it is given, its not invincable to prety much any other good first world tank, or anti tank weapon.

To say it is invincable would be like being some large upper classman bullying yonger kids, he can make the anouncement he is invincable but then he might face a even biger tougher older guy.

So the commen I am invincable is as well founded as what boris said in the golden eye movie.