GAU-8 vs. Merkava 4 ineffective?

[hassata]

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

 

I haven't seen it, but it looks to be full length:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWxKfxD9HMw&feature=related

 

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

 

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

 

Interesting side note I've mentioned before, the US was about to gift 2 squadrons-worth of A-10s to Jordan pre-peace treaty but Israel opposed the deal.

[Rebel44]

 

Interesting side note I've mentioned before, the US was about to gift 2 squadrons-worth of A-10s to Jordan pre-peace treaty but Israel opposed the deal.

 

If it was up to Israel, nations around them wouldnt be able to obtain anything more powerfull than AK-47 :)

[SFJackBauer]

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

 

When it says "kinetic weapons" it must be about tank-fired sabots. How the hell it can intercept effectively a burst of 200 rounds of 30mm shells coming from an aircraft?

[ClearDark]

When it says "kinetic weapons" it must be about tank-fired sabots. How the hell it can intercept effectively a burst of 200 rounds of 30mm shells coming from an aircraft?

 

I was referring to the next stage of development, not the current system.

 

And don't ask me how it's going to do it. If you were told 10 years ago that you could have 360deg protection around a tank from ATGs you'd prolly call it bluff

[VTJS17_Fire]

Will struggle against a Merkava:

Operational success March 2011

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

 

 

I think, an AGM-65 has more power than a RPG rocket.

And I think, real tank commanders don't want to find it out, sitting in the tank. :music_whistling:

 

 

kind regards,

Fire

[HellMutt]

True, this sounds like pure PR. Not much real info. As I read it, an RPG might have been foiled, and even that doesn't sound to sure (tank might have caught fire, as IDF says crew was not hurt). This does not mean tank was not incapacitated, although it might be a start a defense.

[TheProphet]

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

 

Actually, that's a model of the older Merkava 2b.

 

The future development of the "Trophy" (which will be a combination of the "Trophy" and the IMI's "Iron Fist" APS) will "only" be able to intercept APFSDS rounds, not GAU-8 rounds and such.

 

Also, the first ture successful operational use of a hard-kill tank active protection system is belonged to the Russian "Drozd" APS system which was used in the 1980's in Afghanistan.

[Frederf]

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

 

Maybe single GAU-8 rounds but not 100-200. I'm not saying that that capability is impossible in the year 2150 but just... no. KE weapons mean big sabot rounds fired from other tanks.

 

Also if the thing was capable of defeating a 500 lb Paveway hit their marketing would mention it. Missile shaped warheads and sabot penetrators are surgical things that can be disrupted with reasonable force. Bombs are somewhat different. At how many yards would you have to detonate a 500 lb bomb to save a tank?

 

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.

 

The size of the effect of a gun round impact is about the size of your thumb. The idea of overlap or cumulative effect at the same point is a statistical pipe dream. Throw 200 darts at a dartboard removing each one before the next throw and this illustrates how likely "making the hole deeper by hitting in the same spot" is. More rounds = more chances, closer = more energy and more hits.

 

I would not think a Merkava 4 is especially applicable as a target for the GAU-8. However, even if they moved the engine it's still somewhere though and must have an engine lid.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Frederf

[Frostiken]

Law of warfare dictates that weapons will always be better than protection... :)

 

Me, I would just hit the tank from the side to leave it dead in the water, then drop a GBU-12 on it when the repair crews show up.

[fragged]

As Frostiken said, protection will always weight more than a weapon that is capable of destroying that protection. The active protection system seems like a great way to defend the tank against RPG's, AGM's and kinetic weapons like tank sabot rounds, but it won't defend the tank against a burst of 30mm fire. Also, you don't always have to completely destroy the tank. A burst of 30mm fire from a A-10C will probably destroy any equipment outside the tank. Like the APS, TIS, GPS, laser, etc. making the tank ineffective in combat.

[OutOnTheOP]

The US Army already tested Trophy and said "we'll pass on it, thanks". There's a number of flaws with it.

 

First, it requires a constant active radar system to activate. That means your tanks are ALL very easy to find with any kind of SIGINT or JSTARS type asset. Never a good thing. Also, I can pretty much guarantee that at least one of the multiple radar transcievers required for 360* coverage is going to be damaged by brush or careless crewmen, or obscured by stowed equipment.

 

Second, the kill mechanism is little more than a big claymore mine. This means you get one shot and then have to reload your dischargers. It also means it's a hit-or-miss affair, as you have to kind of hope the pattern of pellets is uniform enough that one of the pellets connects the target projectile.

 

Third, limited range. It may be effective against HEAT warhead rounds that need to get very close to the target to be effective, but an Explosively Formed Projectile as used by the CBU-97, TOW-2B, or easily retrofitted onto a Maverick (simply swap out the HEAT warhead and add a simple laser proximity fuze pointing straight forward) would detonate a good 20 to 30 meters away, outside the effective radius of the Trophy countermeasure.

 

Fourth, "effective against kinetic weapons"? Bullsh*t. A spray of 0.02 pound (total swag on my part, assuming a .30 to .35 inch diameter; slightly larger than a claymore) pellets isn't going to significantly disrupt the terminal effects of a 30 pound APFSDS penetrator rod travelling Mach 8 or a 5 pound copper EFP slug travelling Mach 30.

 

The video is clearly a manufacturer's advertisement. Of course they stage it to make their product look good.

 

It's similar to the situation surrounding "Dragon Skin" body armor. Despite catastrophic failure in Army testing on some 7 of 30 test shots, despite weighing 40% more than the issue armor it was competing against, and and despite comprising some 135% the volume/ bulk of the issue armor, the company marketing it managed to convince so many ignorant civilians and family of soldiers of it's superiority that there were Congressional inquiries and legal proceedings to explain why the Army hadn't given the soldiers the "best" armor. Pure bullsh*t.

 

*edit* Oh, I forgot one of the other major flaws of Trophy: since it uses a shotgun blast of pellets to defeat incoming rounds, it's a HUGE collateral damage hazard when used in an urban area, and it essentially prevents the use of tank/ infantry tactics, since it would end up shotgunning your own supporting infantry. Now, I have BEEN in urban armored combat (and trained for armored combat in woods and other environs), and I will tell you this: given the choice between proper infantry support and an iffy maybe-it-works-maybe-it-don't missile defense system, I would MUCH rather have a screen of infantrymen shooting the sneaky basterd RPG gunners in the face before they can shoot at me.

Edited May 2, 2011 by OutOnTheOP

[SmokeyTheLung]

I would MUCH rather have a screen of infantrymen shooting the sneaky basterd RPG gunners in the face before they can shoot at me.

ˆˆˆThat about says it

[Frostiken]

Ugh, imagine that trade-off too. Risk your tank's armor and trust it to defeat the RPG, or have a system that saves your ass but turns all your buddies to a soft pulp outside...

 

All things considered, I thought DARPAs Iron Curtain system was, albeit silly, very cute :)

Edited May 2, 2011 by Frostiken

[OutOnTheOP]

Truth told, the most impressive Active protection I've seen is the FCS Quick Kill system. Not sure if it's still being developed. It's designed to intercept the incoming projectile with a guided missile; the only test footage I've seen is a VERY close-in engagement, though. Either way, it uses directional blast rather than projectiles or fragmentation, and is a lot more infantry-friendly. Would cause some concussions and probably ruptured eardrums, but not likely to shred a squad the way Trophy would. Still needs work, though... if you ask me, they need to combine the Quick Kill interception method with the Iron Curtain vertical attack profile to get an active defense system that is workable with armor/ infantry combined operations.

Edited May 2, 2011 by OutOnTheOP

[Silent Warrior]

Can't bust the armour of a tank? Well, then get low and land a couple of bullets right in the barrel! :music_whistling:

 

:joystick:

[WRFirefox]

Sorry - but i don´t understand the discussion (and sorry too, my english isn´t very well;)).

 

BUT - will there ever be a single Tank on the battlefield and its the target of an A-10C that only have its cannon loaded?:doh:

 

The A-10 is a Tank-Killer and one of the most powerful weaponplatform in this theatre. And be sure the commanders know that, if they have the Warthog as opponent, that they don´t count only on the protection of a Tank itself.:smilewink:

[topol-m]

I`m very skeptical of the abilities of Gau-8 to destroy modern tanks, be it merkava or another one, as they are much better armored than say a T-55 or 62. Note that I say destroy not damage. Damage it certainly will do, to targeting instruments, tracks, etc.

The cannon is usually used in short burst fire during a strafe run. Even the high rate of fire cannot guarantee numerous hits at the same impact point. The accuracy Accipiter mentioned on the first page may look impressive, but so far I haven`t seen a video of A-10 practice fire that proves that number. On the contrary, the hits look quite dispersed, which makes me believe 80% in 6 m from 1200 m is a bit exagerated or maybe it shows the accuracy in perfect conditions.