Israel invents a "force field"?

[TheCobra1]

Has Israel invented a force field? http://media2.foxnews.com/040606/040606_fr_tobin_300.swf

Boy, that little country has a lot of brains.

[Paal_101]

Actually, the forcefield is media hype.

The so called "forcefield" is actuallya kill zone around the tank created by a shotgun-style weapon known as Trophy Active Protection System (TAPS for short) . When an RPG is fired at the tank, the TAPS picks it up on radar. The countermeasure mechanism includes a small turret on top of the tank, which turns and shoots a cone of shrapnel, if you will, at the approaching RPG or ATM, which detonates it at range. It gives the sense of a forcefield as the shotgun fires to detonate the weapon at a particular distance from the vehicle. Quite an impressive defence Combined with reactive and Chobham armor, it should give Merkavas and Abrams a huge boost in combat effectiveness.

As for forcefield? Not in the sense of an energy barrier. It just sounds high-tech and advanced, mostly to impress opponents and you, the American taxpayer, who will soon be purchasing this fabulous technology at a cost of $300,000 per vehicle And it is not the first system of its type developed, as the link below explains.

More info: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/art...s/20060418.aspx

On an aside: Man I hate Fox, what a bunch of idiots! "Top Secret Countermeasure", give me a break. "RPG's - crude weapons".......trust me, with the newer projectiles RPG-7s are far from crude. New anti-armor versions are capable of punching through 300 mm of armor, roughly 12 inches. Cheap, not crude. Plus I dare them to ask any tanker if the RPG-22 is a crude weapon. Simple, but far from crude. The report gives the impression that the US Army does not use similar weapons. Obviously they have never heard of the M-72 LAW

One thing they did get right: RPGs cause half of all US casualties in Iraq. All in a weapon that costs roughly $200 (even $100 in some places) for the launcher and roughly $30 on average for each projectile. And a $200 RPG-7 is more than capable of taking out a $4.3 million M1A2 Abrams MBT.

Plus check out some of the new RPGs showing up in Iraq and even Fox would not call these crude.

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articl...tos_2004614.asp

Edited April 19, 2006 by Paal_101

[Mythos_Ruler]

Well, Fox is the cesspool of objective "journalism," there's no doubt.

[Uppy]

Well, that seems pretty cool! Those must cost a ton of money! I should get one for my vehicle......

[Paal_101]

the American taxpayer, who will soon be purchasing this fabulous technology at a cost of $300,000 per vehicle

From my previous post

[Morgan]

It just sounds high-tech and advanced, mostly to impress opponents and you, the American taxpayer, who will soon be purchasing this fabulous technology at a cost of $300,000 per vehicle

That's chump change in the defense industry. We currently have about $500,000,000,000 USD worth of military aircraft. That's 1/3 the value of the military aircraft we had in 1990.

[Paal_101]

Indeed, with the B-2s still being paid off it gets pretty expensive. Add to that the F-35 purchase, and the F-22 just coming online it will increase. Don't forget the ongoing conversion of four Ohio SSBN to guided missile subs, plus the procurement of a new .45 calibur side arm (most likely a new design) and the failure of the XM-29 OICW program, and the purchase of the Stryker armored fighting vehicle. Plus the new Seawolf-class subs were cut short at three boats, spawning the need (and consequent R&D) for the Virginia Class SSN, which cost $2.6 billion per unit, with 30 on order. Not to mention the CVN 21 series of nuclear aircraft carriers that start arriving in 2008

As for the TAPS, with 8,800 Abrams in service with the US Army and Marine Corps the total comes to another $2.64 billion. And this does not make the tank invincible. It still hasn't been proven if the system can actually take on multiple warheads at once. Definately increase survivability. But frankly, that is a lot of money for extra weapons.

All with a 2006 budget defecit of $371 billion, and a trade deficit that requires $1 billion dollars of external financing per day, and a national debt owed to foreign banks of $8.4 trillion Good days for the US defense industry, but as an accounting student it makes me cringe.

That being said, I do find military technology fascinating and the TAPS system intriguing.

[Morgan]

All with a 2006 budget defecit of $371 billion, and a trade deficit that requires $1 billion dollars of external financing per day, and a national debt owed to foreign banks of $8.4 trillion Good days for the US defense industry, but as an accounting student it makes me cringe.

Dennis Miller: The deficit doesn't even bother me that much. ... They talk about us owing like $400 billion or something. I always think, 'Do we actually owe somebody that?' And if we do, you know, don't pay 'em. Nobody pays us! There ya go, I just solved the deficit."

[Mythos_Ruler]

Unfortunately, "somebody" does pay us: Foreign Banks, Investors, and Nations. It'll be a dark day indeed when they all decide to "collect." Gawd, our government sucks.

[Paal_101]

Indeed, and evidently the US dollar is sitting on the edge of a potential 40% drop in value. One good thing, they will take down China at the same time, since the Chinese governement holds massive stocks of unconverted US cash for use in international trade. If the US dollar dives, the Chinese economy goes at the same time.

Edited April 24, 2006 by Paal_101

[janwas]

Paul, I share your interest

"RPG's - crude weapons".......trust me, with the newer projectiles RPG-7s are far from crude.

Indeed. Remember the Abrams tank knocked out in Iraq? There was talk of "rail guns" and high-tech experimental weapons, but the culprit is now believed to have been an RPG-7 with a newer HEAT warhead.

heh, it is amusing to think of the arrogance that must underlie those statements ("of course our tank is invincible!"). In reality, firepower will always defeat armor eventually.

The Abrams is only now getting reactive armor plates (as part of TUSK upgrade), which have been used in Chechnya for years. Now they can also have their 'revolutionary' "force field", which has only been around for 20 years. What will they re-invent with glorious fanfare next?

hm, that article is a bit short of details. I wonder if this APS can protect against KE as well as CE rounds?

Edited April 24, 2006 by janwas

[Mythos_Ruler]

Indeed. Remember the Abrams tank knocked out in Iraq? There was talk of "rail guns" and high-tech experimental weapons, but the culprit is now believed to have been an RPG-7 with a newer HEAT warhead.

Right, but how many Abrams tanks have been knocked out in Iraq? Obviously the Iraqi army tried to take them out during the "conventional" phase of the war, but couldn't scratch them. So, why is it so arrogant to assume something special took one out when they performed so beautifully in combat? Just askin. Ain't hatin.

[Paal_101]

That is true Michael, but often times it is easier to say to the public that your best combat vehicle, which has almost never taken a combat loss (and I don't believe that any Abrams was lost to enemy fire before this incident, but I'm not sure), was taken out by a brand new weapon that couldn't have been planned for in the initial design stage of the tank. All this when in fact it was taken out by the same old RPG-7 launcher with a slightly more expensive warhead that the Russians have had in their possession for some time and Iraq was too cheap to buy.

Iraq had hundreds of thousands of RPG-7 projectiles in store at an average cost of $20 apiece. Many were manufactured in country and since they were fighting the Iranians at the time, high quality rounds were not required since they were all driving old tanks that couldn't stand up to the older RPG-7 rounds to begin with. Now in Iraq insurgents are getting their hands on high-quality Russian projectiles which greatly increase lethality at a small increase in price. Your still looking at a projectile of no more than $50 taking out a $4 million tank...

Plus the RPG-27s and 29s are starting show up over there, which ups the vulnerability of Abrams even more.

Did not know you had a similar interest Jan What's your main focus? I focus mostly on small arms (hence my rant on the RPG ), although I have a keen interest in air combat and surface forces.

Edited April 24, 2006 by Paal_101

[janwas]

Right, but how many Abrams tanks have been knocked out in Iraq? Obviously the Iraqi army tried to take them out during the "conventional" phase of the war, but couldn't scratch them. So, why is it so arrogant to assume something special took one out when they performed so beautifully in combat? Just askin. Ain't hatin.

That's a good question.

First, the number of tanks knocked out: 2 total losses, guesstimate 20..100 disabled (1, 2.). The official figure of 8 is really BS, because mobility kills and abandoned all-but-destroyed tanks of course count as 'lost' (even if crew survived).

It is not a realistic picture that's painted when the media says "none were scratched"/"Abrams is invincible".

Now why weren't there more losses? The most modern tanks the Iraqis could muster were some T-72 (export variant). Those were developed in the early 70s - some 10 years before Abrams, not counting the latter's various upgrades. Worse, they didn't even have real ammo for them. It is kind of a joke that destroying those is judged an accomplishment

(and one doesn't even know whether the few dozen T-72 actually fell victim to tanks or air - I'd bet on the latter)

BTW, the Abrams is practically a tank destroyer because its armor is very good for frontal engagements, but too weak from the sides/rear (as seen in above pics, one solid hit to skirt or rear or turret bustle *penetrates*, often leading to ammo cookoff). That means it's great for large-scale tank engagements where the enemy is in front (which was of course its design goal), but bad for urban combat where enemy can be behind or above you.

So let's summarize here. I have seen various flamewars as to "which modern tank is the best?", all fanned by their respective partisans/zealots. Thankfully there hasn't been any real tank battle, so the question remains open. There is one bit of food for thought I'd like to pass on to balance the picture usually presented by the media:

against a modern foe, most any MBT will fall to one ATGM hit (from beyond visual range). As a small consolation, Leo2A6 tanks have some protection against this and T90 has good countermeasures. Abrams looks to have the worst hand dealt here, actually.

Did not know you had a similar interest Jan What's your main focus? I focus mostly on small arms (hence my rant on the RPG ), although I have a keen interest in air combat and surface forces.

That's cool!

I have an interest in tanks - no surprise, since my dad is in charge of German tank R&D.

[Paal_101]

Sweet Is he corporate or military?

Edited April 24, 2006 by Paal_101

[janwas]

Ah, he's employed by the government (office of military technology and procurement). The weird thing is: this office decides what research to pursue, the task goes to one of the (mostly goverment financed) research institutes, they produce a workable approach/prototype, and then *give* it to a company that then finishes/builds it.

Sounded quite strange to me initially, but this seems to be standard.

How did your interest in the military develop?

Edited April 24, 2006 by janwas

[Paal_101]

That is a little strange, but it figures that research impetus would start where the money was coming from.

My interest started with my dad, who as a private pilot got me very interested in WWII aviation and air combat in general. That kick started me into military topics of pretty much all areas. Plus both of my grandfathers fought in WWII, one with the US Army (saw action at the Battle of the Bulge) and the other with the Croation Army, and this gave me further interest in military topics in general.

An interest in ancient combat started when I was about 5 years old as I flipped through my copy of Usborne's History of the World Since age 6 I was pretty much a lost cause Pretty much now I am a hopeless addict for anything remotely connected to weapons, armor, tactics, or history. As a by product I also have an uncurable attraction to epic literature

Obviously through your dad I'm sure you've gotten the chance to sit in a Leopard or two, or even a T-72 Had a chance to see an example of the later in the Canadian War Museum. Must say that is an impressive vehicle, although the Centurion next to it was a bit more to my liking (unfortunately I couldn't affoard that much gas). In addition they have a T-34 that fought at Kursk and all the way to Berlin. Must say that was the brutest machine I have ever seen in my life

[janwas]

Ah, very cool. That would do it

5?! wow, that's early. I eventually read my way through the WW2 history bookshelf in the school library, but that wasn't until 13 or so.

Obviously through your dad I'm sure you've gotten the chance to sit in a Leopard or two, or even a T-72

T-72, yes (albeit in a museum, where they show one basically cut in half). The best thing was being passenger in an MLRS (the project my dad was working on before that) driving through rough terrain. Whee!

although the Centurion next to it was a bit more to my liking (unfortunately I couldn't affoard that much gas).

heh. Modern tanks have actually gotten worse in that regard than WW2! M1 guzzles 2 gallons per mile, while PzKw V (Panther) needed about 1.3, I think.

In addition they have a T-34 that fought at Kursk and all the way to Berlin. Must say that was the brutest machine I have ever seen in my life

Nice. Yep, impressive tank for its time.

Edited April 25, 2006 by janwas

[CrazyThumbs]

Ahh, some more people interested in WW2

A tank and small arms man myself, although I dont know much about modern times, most I can point out is an Abrams, Bradley, maybe a T-72

<----WW2 U.S soldier with Bazooka

Edited April 25, 2006 by CrazyThumbs

[Paal_101]

Got any particularly favorite WWII small arms? Mine would have to be all German: Gewehr 43, Mauser 98k, and FG-42

[Mythos_Ruler]

MP-44 here - the precursor to the infamous AK-47.

[CrazyThumbs]

Favorites....hmmm, for rifles probably the Mosin, Kar98 (dont know how great they were performance wise) Might get a Mosin soon Automatics, DP-28 just looks so cool, BAR is also pretty sexy, my favorites tend to vary though.

The AK-47 is actually very different from the MP 44, they look alike but the way they work etc.. is different. The guy who designed the AK (forgot his name) said this. someone else can elaborate.

Favorites tank wise, KV-2 for a heavy tank, yes I know it was unreliable, with a huge unweildly turret, but in the beginning of the war the only thing that could stop it was the 88mm.

Never really picked favorites, I like them all.

[Centurion_13]

Got any particularly favorite WWII small arms? Mine would have to be all German: Gewehr 43, Mauser 98k, and FG-42

The Kar 98K is awesome. I love it. As is the Gewehr 43. The Mosin-Nagant also is pretty good.

I happen to like rifles.

[TheCobra1]

Hey guys, a quick question. Does this belong in "The Hall Of Intellectuals"?

[Paal_101]

Not really I think, its more of a general discussion of a piece of equipment. There is very little debate going on in my opinion