What's new

Zulfiqar - IRAN MADE MBT

Of course you can penetrate an Abrams from the front, a LAHAT ATGM will be good enough
Also, IMI (Israel) and Ordnance Enterprise (Switzerland) developed a 140mm cannon, its sabot shell can penetrate 1 meter of RHA, over enough to penetrate an Abrams, which will be implemented on the Mk4, and maybe the FMCV series in the next few years.

"Smart crews will get a mobility kill by disabling the tank's tracks or engine. You do this in modern tank warfare, and the tank is dead. This can also be a mission kill if the enemy is advancing on a position."
Tracks on the Merkava? maybe
Engine? no.
First of all, there is a lot of armor in the front, even though the Engine is in the front.
Second of all, there are 2 more armor plates before anything could reach the engine
Tracks can be easily fixed, matter of a hour or so.

I know missiles can be fired from the 2A46M, but are useless against the Merkava, armor wise and APS wise.

"A catastrophic kill is when you get a really good hit, or after already disabling the tank in other ways. These are the blowing off turrets, smoking out the crew you see on TV/YT. You do these by hitting the ammo or fuel storage. The Americans and their DU shells got a lot of these kills against the Iraqi's Soviet tanks, who employed bad tactics, and didn't even have ERA."
Again, the Merkava is already confirmed the most protected tank in the world, armor and APS wise.
Hell, Hezbollah fired a lot of ATGMs against the Israelis in 2006, destroying only 3 Merkavas, none of them were Mk4, before the Trophy.

"Iran's APS is of the more well established "soft kill" type, jamming or blinding enemy ATGMs. Look at the below T-72 equipment on the turret, especially the tall emitter, and the 2 black boxes on either side of the gun barrel in the second photo (they look very Shtora-y to me)."
This might be just a radar, I cannot find anything about Iranian APS in the internet.

"And Iran has said it has equipped M60s with anti-TOW jamming system. Early TOWs are prone to IR jamming (technical discussion here) and modern TOWs are wireless and therefore prone to jamming."
That's easily prevented by coded IR flare. this makes it immune to IR jammers
And also, the second thing you said is bullshit.
TOW stands for Tube-launched, optically-tracked, *WIRE*-guided.
So its completely resistant to jamming.

"
In any case, I doubt the usefulness of a Trophy-like APS. Tanks MUST be accompanied by infantry (especially to weed out ATGM teams), and firing shotguns in the presence is opening you up to friendly fire. And I don't care what Rafael says, you wouldn't say your own products flaws if you're trying to sell it."
Why would troops need to accompany a tank with APS against ATGM troops?
Anyways, you can be 10 meters away from the tank and you'll be safe.

A LAHAT ATGM has a HEAT warhead. It has 800 mm penetration against RHA, but modern Abrams have more powerful DU armour. I don't think the LAHAT can crack it. It might get close, but it's simply too risky to fire and give away your positron, hoping for penetration. Firing from the sides or rear gives a much better guarantee of substantial damage.

As for fixing tracks - that is true for all tanks, but do you want that? You get hit by an opponent, you can't move. If he gets you from the sides he might have firepower killed you too. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to be stuck motionless in a modern battlefield. Mobility is key. You can't move, there is a high probability that before you can tow the tank out you will be killed.

I don't really care what tank gun can or can't disable a merkava. I'm talking in general about tank warfare, I'm not here for another pissing contest, which you seem to want.

As for the BGM-71...

"Under the terms of $349m contract, Raytheon will supply a total of 6,676 next-generation TOW missiles, which are capable of receiving commands from the gunner using an inbuilt wireless guidance link."

http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsraytheon-supply-wireless-tow-missiles-us-army
 
.
A LAHAT ATGM has a HEAT warhead. It has 800 mm penetration against RHA, but modern Abrams have more powerful DU armour. I don't think the LAHAT can crack it. It might get close, but it's simply too risky to fire and give away your positron, hoping for penetration. Firing from the sides or rear gives a much better guarantee of substantial damage.

As for fixing tracks - that is true for all tanks, but do you want that? You get hit by an opponent, you can't move. If he gets you from the sides he might have firepower killed you too. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to be stuck motionless in a modern battlefield. Mobility is key. You can't move, there is a high probability that before you can tow the tank out you will be killed.

I don't really care what tank gun can or can't disable a merkava. I'm talking in general about tank warfare, I'm not here for another pissing contest, which you seem to want.

As for the BGM-71...

"Under the terms of $349m contract, Raytheon will supply a total of 6,676 next-generation TOW missiles, which are capable of receiving commands from the gunner using an inbuilt wireless guidance link."

http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsraytheon-supply-wireless-tow-missiles-us-army
the LAHAT is a top attack capable ATGM, would easily destroy it.
You wont give away your position, you can fire it 8 kilometers away.

Enemy such as? https://www.google.co.il/search?q=M...hXMfhoKHapKD44Q_AUIBigB#imgrc=xgk_bxibaEGIvM:
An ATGM couldn't penetrate the Merkava's side, it was the METIS that wasn't able, It would be harder to penetrate the Merkava with a cannon.
Also, the Merkava have a lot of protection, against HEAT shells, RPGs, ATGMs and even small bombs

What's the point of calling it a TOW then?
 
.
the LAHAT is a top attack capable ATGM, would easily destroy it.
You wont give away your position, you can fire it 8 kilometers away.

Enemy such as? https://www.google.co.il/search?q=Merkava+4+hit&espv=2&biw=1680&bih=949&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb3Na15JXNAhXMfhoKHapKD44Q_AUIBigB#imgrc=xgk_bxibaEGIvM:
An ATGM couldn't penetrate the Merkava's side, it was the METIS that wasn't able, It would be harder to penetrate the Merkava with a cannon.
Also, the Merkava have a lot of protection, against HEAT shells, RPGs, ATGMs and even small bombs

What's the point of calling it a TOW then?

Yes, LAHAT is a top attack. So it won't be going for the front. Therefore there is no point in us discussing if it can or cannot penetrate the front since the weapon doesn't work that way.

As for that image, I don't have any idea what the weapon fired against that is. It could have been an RPG-7 for all we know. Either way, I'm not too fussed about the Merkava.

As for the naming of the TOW - most versions of the BGM-71 were wire guided, so they called it the TOW. Modern variants are wirelessly guided, but the name stuck.
 
.
Yes, LAHAT is a top attack. So it won't be going for the front. Therefore there is no point in us discussing if it can or cannot penetrate the front since the weapon doesn't work that way.

As for that image, I don't have any idea what the weapon fired against that is. It could have been an RPG-7 for all we know. Either way, I'm not too fussed about the Merkava.

As for the naming of the TOW - most versions of the BGM-71 were wire guided, so they called it the TOW. Modern variants are wirelessly guided, but the name stuck.

I didn't mean penetrate the front, I meant penetrate from the front. Sorry if I confused you.

I read that it was the Metis missile

Well, they should rename the wirelessly guided missiles, because TOW stands for wire guided missiles.
 
.
latest

I am quite serious.

Developing technologies under sanctions is not easy.
 
. . . .
Zulfiqar looks nice and sleek, good work @SOHEIL . Pretty beast. But can someone tell me its weight, # of crew and why 7 wheels as opposed to 6?
 
. . .
There are lots of examples where people teased posts in this section and then were proved wrong. @SOHEIL just made some examples recently about drones and the conflicts in Syria and Iraq.

Hold on to this until you are proved wrong. But promise not to hide like the rest when it makes its first flight.
 
.
This is not technology
This tank can be compared to a second or third generation tank.

It is better than being unarmed. Whatever level of technology one has.

I know you're not in particular a fan of theirs and understandably so but the Iran-Israel rivalry has got to be one of the most meaningless ones.

No territorial disputes.

No religious conflict (not indigenous religion related at least)

No international political or diplomatic problems.

But just for the sake of other countries and their ideology in the region.

Sheesh.

I hope Iran and Israel can patch up again.
 
.
There are lots of examples where people teased posts in this section and then were proved wrong. @SOHEIL just made some examples recently about drones and the conflicts in Syria and Iraq.

Hold on to this until you are proved wrong. But promise not to hide like the rest when it makes its first flight.
You just proved that it didn't fly before.
And the plane cannot fly, not with that design.
Cockpit too small, surface is ineffectively flat, that means it is not stealth, a lot of bumps, no stealth
They don't really know how to weld plastic I can see, the retainer will barley manage to turn the aircraft, and with a mechanical speedometer that reaches just until 300 knots?
 
.
You just proved that it didn't fly before.
And the plane cannot fly, not with that design.
Cockpit too small, surface is ineffectively flat, that means it is not stealth, a lot of bumps, no stealth
They don't really know how to weld plastic I can see, the retainer will barley manage to turn the aircraft, and with a mechanical speedometer that reaches just until 300 knots?

Newsflash: mockups don't have to be the same size, nor look exactly like, the real thing!
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom