GAU-8 vs. Merkava 4 ineffective?

[Rebel44]

Hi everyone,

 

How effective do you think would GAU-8 be against Merkava 4?

 

Things which lead me to believe that is would be ineffective:

- improved top and rear armor (designed for urban combat)

- diesel engine behind frontal armor (in this place its not vulnerable to GAU-8)

 

so while hits be GAU-8 would destroy equipment outside of tank, its very unlikely (IMO) that GAU-8 would be able to kill this tank.

 

Also new Israeli 120mm APAM round is supposed to be effective against helicopters and slow flying aircraft (fire control system is designed to be able to track such targets).

 

What do you think?

Edited May 1, 2011 by Rebel44

[VTJS17_Fire]

I would use a AGM-65 ... :music_whistling:

 

 

kind regards,

Fire

[Mad Dog 7.62]

I think the Warthog would eat Merkavas for lunch. ;-) A lot of the armor effectiveness on the Merkava comes from the slope of the armor. Its not sloped to be effective against air attack, which is fine as the Israelis plan to own the air over thier tanks.

[Sinky]

Didn't someone around here say that the thicker the armour then the more rounds you need concentrated on the same area to penetrate? Kind of how the hitting the front of the T-80U will take more rounds than the rear or the top.

 

I see visions of two A-10C's running in on the weakest point seconds apart from each other. If that is even a valid tactic.

 

Just remember, if these two ever went head to head in a war we would have already invented a good counter to it's armour if we didn't have one already.

[159th_Viper]

I would use a AGM-65 ... :music_whistling:

 

Will struggle against a Merkava:

 

ASPRO-A Counter-measure system

 

http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/3/943.pdf

 

Operational success March 2011

 

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142612

[Xxx]

I would say the Merkava would be eaten by the Hog;-

 

The standard ammunition mixture for anti-armor use is a four-to-one mix of PGU-14/B Armour Piercing Incendiary, with a projectile weight of about 15.0 oz (425 grams or 6,560 grains) and PGU-13/BHigh Explosive Incendiary(HEI) rounds, with a projectile weight of about 12.7 oz (360 grams or 5,556.25 grains). The PGU-14/B's projectile incorporates a lightweight aluminum body, cast around a smaller caliber Depleted Uranium penetrating core. The Avenger is lethal against tanks and all other armored vehicles.

 

The GAU-8/A accuracy when installed in the A-10 is rated at "5mil, 80 percent", meaning that 80 percent of rounds fired at 4,000 feet (1,200 m) will hit the target within a 20 feet (6.1 m) radius circle. By comparison, the M61 is rated at 8 milliradians.

 

Roll in on one at 4000' and I guess there wont be much Merkava left:music_whistling:

[hassata]

I just threw up a little in my mouth.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142612

 

 

 

b7s5lnjXR5s

 

Realizing the capabilities of the Merkava 4 tank, Hezbollah allocated their most advanced weaponry to combat this advanced tank, engaging these tanks exclusively with the heavier, more capable missiles such as 9M133 AT-14 Kornet, 9M131 Metis M and RPG-29.

 

RPG-29 and 9M113 Konkurs (AT-5) were employed mostly against Merkava 3 and 2 while non-tandem weapons, such as Tow, Fagot and improved RPG 7Vs were left to engage other armored vehicles such as AIFV. The least used were AT-3 Sagger and, to a limited extent, the TOW as well as non tandem RPGs, were considered obsolete against tanks, but proved quite lethal against troops seeking cover in buildings.

 

Overall, almost 90% of the tanks hit were by tandem warheads. In general, Hezbollah militants prioritized Merkava Mk 4 over Merkava Mk 2 and 3, and in general, targeted tanks over AIFV. At the beginning of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, the main Israeli concern was a report that Hezbollah possessed Russian Kornet antitank missiles. However, it also saw the RPG-29 Vampir with a tandem HEAT that had stolen the show. There were even rumors that Hezbollah had received the notorious TBG-29V thermobaric rounds, but these could not be confirmed in action.

 

Hezbollah deployed their tank-killer teams in a thin but effective defensive scheme, protecting the villages where the organization's Shiite members reside; villages where their short range rockets were positioned and where command infrastructure and logistics support was set up. An estimated 500 to 600 members of their roughly 4,000-strong Hezbollah fighting strength in South Lebanon were divided into tank-killer teams of 5 or 6, each armed with 5-8 anti-tank missiles, with further supplies stored in small fortified well camouflaged bunkers and fortified basements, built to withstand Israeli air attacks.

 

Due to mountainous area, engagements were encountered at ranges below 3000 meters. Hezbollah tank-killer teams would lay in wait in camouflaged bunkers or houses, having planted large IEDs on known approach routes. Once an Israeli tank would detonate one of these, Hezbollah would start lobbing mortar shells onto the scene to prevent rescue teams rushing forward, also firing at outflanking Merkava tanks by targeting the more vulnerable rear zone with RPGs. In general, Hezbollah demonstrated rather slow regrouping and response rate, since their mobility and command links were severely restricted by the IDF dominating the open areas. However, even this slow pace was fast enough to match the slow and indecisive movements of the Israelis forces.

 

The night vision equipment used by Hezbollah was not as advanced as the IDF's. They possess mainly individual night vision equipment and some night observation systems, but generally lacked night capabilities for their anti-tank weapons. Benefiting from its superior night combat capability, the IDF conducted most movements at night, minimizing exposure of forces during day time.

 

David Eshel

Copyright 2007, Defense Update

[Rebel44]

Didn't someone around here say that the thicker the armour then the more rounds you need concentrated on the same area to penetrate? Kind of how the hitting the front of the T-80U will take more rounds than the rear or the top.

 

I see visions of two A-10C's running in on the weakest point seconds apart from each other. If that is even a valid tactic.

 

Just remember, if these two ever went head to head in a war we would have already invented a good counter to it's armour if we didn't have one already.

 

A-10 mostly (AFAIK) kills tanks by hitting weak deck armor over engine.

 

Merkava 4 dont have such weak spot so it would take much more hits to disable/kill such tank.

 

Also now tanks start having weapons (like APAM) capable of destroying slow flying aircrafts and helicopters.

 

Trophy (ASPRO-A) can neutralize missiles launched at Merkava 4

 

As tanks like that start to became more and more common life will IMO start to get difficult to tankbusters.

[b101uk]

You can still disable a tank making it ineffectual simply by damaging or braking the track and wheel/suspension system, it then just can at as a stationery emplacement at best, it also ties up resources if it has to be recovered to be repaired and that’s regardless of the hull and turret armour strength. ;)

 

You can only put so much protection into the track/wheel/drive system before the tank its self becomes compromised in off-road ability. :thumbup:

[Rebel44]

I would say the Merkava would be eaten by the Hog;-

 

The standard ammunition mixture for anti-armor use is a four-to-one mix of PGU-14/B Armour Piercing Incendiary, with a projectile weight of about 15.0 oz (425 grams or 6,560 grains) and PGU-13/BHigh Explosive Incendiary(HEI) rounds, with a projectile weight of about 12.7 oz (360 grams or 5,556.25 grains). The PGU-14/B's projectile incorporates a lightweight aluminum body, cast around a smaller caliber Depleted Uranium penetrating core. The Avenger is lethal against tanks and all other armored vehicles.

 

The GAU-8/A accuracy when installed in the A-10 is rated at "5mil, 80 percent", meaning that 80 percent of rounds fired at 4,000 feet (1,200 m) will hit the target within a 20 feet (6.1 m) radius circle. By comparison, the M61 is rated at 8 milliradians.

 

Roll in on one at 4000' and I guess there wont be much Merkava left:music_whistling:

 

30mm DU round isnt magic want saying "you are dead" - you would need much much more hits compared to less armored tanks. Also Merkava (and some other tanks) can defend itself (APAM round was designed for such purpose).

[Rebel44]

You can still disable a tank making it ineffectual simply by damaging or braking the track and wheel/suspension system, it then just can at as a stationery emplacement at best, it also ties up resources if it has to be recovered to be repaired and that’s regardless of the hull and turret armour strength. ;)

 

You can only put so much protection into the track/wheel/drive system before the tank its self becomes compromised in off-road ability. :thumbup:

 

I agree, but its easier to do such repairs than to build/buy new tank + replace crew

 

Protection of crew is important because no 1st world country is willing to tolerate high losses unless they are invaded.

[combatace]

One thing Merkawa has is it engine is in front of the crew compartment rather than at the rare. So if the tank gets a hit from the front even if tank is damaged crew will survive but about Air attack it not good. By the way there is no Merkawa in the game, right?

[ClearDark]

In 2006 Lebenese campaign there were no "Wind Coats" installed on any of the Merkava's. These were field tested 4 months ago with a live crew and fire and only one battalion as of now (Mk4's) have these installed.

 

 

The next development of the Trophy will intercept kinetic weapons (including GAU8 rounds)

 

Check this video out:

 

[combatace]

How about Merkava III in FC 2 or even A-10C? ;)

Edited May 1, 2011 by combatace

[b101uk]

The problem with the active protection system like “trophy” is like a lot of thing it may offer 360deg protection but generally it will only offer protection once or twice from the same angle when faced with sustained high rates of fire like with a GAU-8 simply as the system must be able to reload fast enough and carry a sufficient amount if its own countermeasures.

 

:smilewink:

[ClearDark]

The problem with the active protection system like “trophy” is like a lot of thing it may offer 360deg protection but generally it will only offer protection once or twice from the same angle when faced with sustained high rates of fire like with a GAU-8 simply as the system must be able to reload fast enough and carry a sufficient amount if its own countermeasures.

 

:smilewink:

 

Trophy doesnt fire missiles. It fires pellets at extreme high velocity.

 

There is no reload mechanism

[159th_Viper]

...."Wind Coats"....

 

מעיל רוח or 'Windbreaker'

 

:)

[ClearDark]

I'm an israeli, we call it Wind Coats in hebrew so that was a loose translation :P

[b101uk]

Trophy doesnt fire missiles. It fires pellets at extreme high velocity.

 

There is no reload mechanism

 

did I say it fired "missiles"

 

also it has an auto re-loader according to Rafael, ergo it must reload and if it must reload it must do it faster than a GAU-8 or similar to be effective agenised them under a sustained burst of fire. ;)

[BTTW-DratsaB]

 

 

 

 

b7s5lnjXR5s

 

Was that a full length documentary or just a feature on a news program? Interesting any way, thanks.

[159th_Viper]

(including GAU8 rounds)

 

As radical as that may sound, who knows where weapons-development will take us.....Certainly boggles the mind. In any event, it will have to be one helluva system to be able to intercept projectiles travelling in excess of 1km per second.

[Rebel44]

Was that a full length documentary or just a feature on a news program? Interesting any way, thanks.

 

its (almost) full lenght ducumentary - problem is that it contain lots if mistakes and lies (some parts are pure propaganda) - well ,at least its not as biased as their documentary about six day war (which was crap from A to Z).

Edited May 1, 2011 by Rebel44

[ClearDark]

Yeah, we never know where technology will take us :)

 

Fortunately, Merkava's will not have to face A-10s..at least I hope :)

[Sinky]

A-10 mostly (AFAIK) kills tanks by hitting weak deck armor over engine.

 

Merkava 4 dont have such weak spot so it would take much more hits to disable/kill such tank.

 

Also now tanks start having weapons (like APAM) capable of destroying slow flying aircrafts and helicopters.

 

Trophy (ASPRO-A) can neutralize missiles launched at Merkava 4

 

As tanks like that start to became more and more common life will IMO start to get difficult to tankbusters.

 

It can take out missiles being fired at it but can it also take out a GBU-12 for example? I suppose it can detect the fact it's being lased so it could probably take it out. That leaves us with IAM's, which I doubt it could ever detect.

[sobek]

It can take out missiles being fired at it but can it also take out a GBU-12 for example? I suppose it can detect the fact it's being lased so it could probably take it out. That leaves us with IAM's, which I doubt it could ever detect.

 

Not sure whether it really could defeat a guided bomb coming in at a high angle, after all, it doesn't offer protection up to 90° elevation.