M1A2 Abrams

Wolf-07 · Post by **Wolf-07** » 2007-05-31 12:13

Hi everyone, i dunno if this has been brought up before but i find it very interesting....

Fans of the M1A2 Abrams tank would know that it uses a jet engine rather than old fashion diesel, hence the fuel consumption.....anyways havin a jet engine means u got a jet exhaust, which leads to...heat...now i dunno if im correct about this(or up to this point) but the anti air rockets are heat seekers right??? so would it make sense for them to also be attracted to the M1A2 Abrams(the rear) as well as aircraft?? or is this not possible within the bf2 engine?? =x

If i have gotten any info incorrect then please feel free to correct =D

Post by **Bob_Marley** » 2007-05-31 12:16

As amusing as that sounds, I dont think an SA-7 would do much against an Abrams, even to the rear.

robbo · Post by **robbo** » 2007-05-31 12:20

I dont think he was on about making them do damage, just to lock on, correct?

Swe_Olsson · Post by **Swe_Olsson** » 2007-05-31 12:49

I belive it could do some damage to the engine actually, tanks are usually weak in the *** and top

El_Vikingo · Post by **El_Vikingo** » 2007-05-31 13:03

I still prefer my RPG, and don't want people SA'7'ing me while driving a tank.

Wolf-07 · Post by **Wolf-07** » 2007-05-31 13:05

apart from locking on i would expect it to do some damage, maybe the same or less than the rpg, i know this sounds a bit wierd but after watching discovery channel i had a day dream in a situation on Al Barsah where no1 had any rpg ammo left and the advancement of tanks became critical where the anti air troops had to pull out of targeting the air and put into use as anti tank roles as a last resort =x
I would also expect that jets using havin anti-air missles would also be able to do quite a bit of damage to the tanks too, again only if the missle hits the rear =x

But back to the main topic, u think it be possible to implement this into PR?? D:

robbo · Post by **robbo** » 2007-05-31 13:05

El_Vikingo wrote:I still prefer my RPG, and don't want people SA'7'ing me while driving a tank.

Never knew you owned an rpg

Yeh would be a waste of a valuable AA missile too.

El_Vikingo · Post by **El_Vikingo** » 2007-05-31 15:22

robbo wrote:Never knew you owned an rpg
Yeh would be a waste of a valuable AA missile too.

You can get TSV RPGs, which are cheap.

[W2D]BEEJ · Post by **[W2D]BEEJ** » 2007-05-31 16:22

a nice group of rpg insurgents and 1 policeman for ammo would suffice... positioned in different locations firing few seconds after each other... the abrams wouldnt know what to do.... and imo the abrams look good enough as they are...

Longbow* · Post by Longbow* » 2007-05-31 17:00

'[W2D wrote:BEEJ'] and 1 policeman for ammo

Where have you been before ? 1-2 weeks and there would be no Policeman in PR , officially .

Post by **Outlawz7** » 2007-05-31 17:52

Meh, when the RPGs actually had a Policeman with ammo supplies, they shoot down and ripped apart everything, that moved, untill the USMCs sended in a squad of Spec Ops to sweep them out...

Post by **Hitperson** » 2007-05-31 18:25

well its not actually a jet engine its a turbo-shaft (a helicoptor engine) and an sa7 would be pointless as ani air missiles don't actually hit the target they use shrapnell to shred the aircraft.

Wolf-07 · Post by **Wolf-07** » 2007-05-31 21:29

shrapnel can enter the vents at the back causing exterior damage making it more open for damage to occur in the internal organs of the tank's rear

$kelet0r · Post by **$kelet0r** » 2007-05-31 22:17

Wolf-07 wrote:shrapnel can enter the vents at the back causing exterior damage making it more open for damage to occur in the internal organs of the tank's rear

You're kidding?
The rear of a tank is less armoured than the front glassis but it will still stop even old 120mm tank shells. Shrapnel? A chance in a billion of stopping a tank.

eddie · Post by **eddie** » 2007-05-31 22:25

As Skeletor said...

You realise that's like throwing a bottle at a car and hoping that some of the shards of glass get in through the radiator? If this car had armoured plates on it...

NYgurkha · Post by **NYgurkha** » 2007-06-01 00:32

IRL, trying to make a SA-7 warhead get a lock on to a target on teh ground would be implossible i think. The presence of multiple heat sources and inteference would cause the guidance and targeting system to go crazy. Plus, the warhead is small and not made for the penetration of heavy armor, and the M1A2 has a reduced heat signature and multiple infrared detterence devices.

Crusader09 · Post by **Crusader09** » 2007-06-28 04:27

I read somewhere (forgot the source) that an M1A2 with its current turbine engine generates heat up to 2,000 degrees. Degrees F or C I do not know but the exhaust is extremely hot. So if you see any other videos of M1 tanks and you don't see any infantry walking directly behind them, that's why.

ArmedDrunk&Angry · Post by **ArmedDrunk&Angry** » 2007-06-28 05:06

I don't know the exact figures but no matter how hot a tank's engine gets it is not anywhere near the heat produced by a jet.
If you were in a cold enviroment then the tank might be hot enough to get a lock and there is the 100:1 chance you might do some minor damage to the engine but again this is assuming you are behind the tank.

agentscar · Post by **agentscar** » 2007-06-28 13:45

The rear of the Abrams has a Blast Proof Chamber protecting it.

M1A2 Abrams

M1A2 Abrams

Actually