How Powerful Would A Laser Need To Be To Disable A Abrams Battle Tank?

There are so many misconceptions and misconceptions about lasers, let’s start at the beginning and you will able to know about How Powerful Would A Laser Need To Be To Disable A Abrams Battle Tank? After reading the given below instructions. First and foremost, a laser is nothing more than light.

It’s normally monochromatic and coherent light, but it’s still just light. And the fact that it is coherent and monochromatic has some significant drawbacks compared to sunlight or other strong white light with a wide spectrum of frequencies or wavelengths (colors). Light, of course, heats and melts, causing things to burn and potentially causing skin cancer and eye damage.

Everyone who has ever spent too much time in the sun knows this, but regular white light works in a similar way to laser light. We don’t have very many spotlights or lamps that are brilliant, powerful, or compact enough just to fit into a machine and laser light is also theoretically easier to direct and concentrate onto a small point than equally bright or white racist multi-spectrum light.

Disable A Abrams Battle Tank

How Much Light Would It Take To Melt A Tank Rapidly?

Probably significantly more than this solar tower’s mirrors can collect from the sun (and keep in mind that the sun is a rather strong “light”). However, if you truly put a Abrams Battle Tank up into the tower, where all those mirrors focus the light, it would definitely heat up rather rapidly, and the crew would easily be cooked inside.

And if they tried to climb out through the hatch, the light would kill them instantaneously and cook them alive. So don’t become caught within the top of a solar tower, or even inside a tank! Because of science fiction movies like Star Wars, there are a number of misconceptions about lasers.

Modern fiber laser machines, such as those used in the manufacturing industry, do not cut the metal with the laser alone. Instead, the cutting gas does the actual cutting. The laser light serves merely as a heat source to ignite and maintain the flame of this (small) welding torch.

The reactive gas does the actual cutting, while the laser light is mostly employed as a precise heat source, delivering only a percentage of the total energy required to melt and burn the metal to cut it. Of course, a laser may immediately burn or vaporize metal and hence cut it, but this reduces the speed of the machine to a fraction of what reactive cutting gas-based laser cutters can accomplish and sustain.

What’s more fascinating than the topic of how much light or how powerful a laser would one need to fast burn through Armor Tank? Is the question of how easy and how simple might a tank be being shielded and guarded against such a laser weapon?

 And the second statement is really rather simple.  Simply paint the tank a brilliant white color! – Better still; cover it in chromium or a thin layer of copper. Alternatively, if you happen to be in a tank during an alien invasion and don’t know what else to do, go around collecting mirrors and gluing them all over it.

Any highly shiny surface might easily reflect the majority of the laser light away from the tank! The reflecting surface was simply found to be extremely reflecting in the wavelength range of the laser light used in the attack, therefore copper, which is often used in CO2 lasers and other lasers, would likely accomplish the job quite well.

You could even just use a tiny layer of copper plating and then paint over it with a paint that flames away quickly and cleanly, revealing the bare copper underneath to reflect the laser beam. However, if the laser or light beam is incredibly powerful – and I mean EXTREMELY powerful – you may need to figure out a technique to keep the reflective surfaces cold enough.

Steel, on the other hand, is already a good heat conductor, so that helps a lot. And, for instance, pure copper (liquid at room temperature) returns over 95% of near ultraviolet light, silver even more so, and shiny copper mirrors used in optics for guiding beams reflect over 99.7% of the light CO2 lasers operate with.

So melting such a copper layer with just about any beam that isn’t going to be anything like precisely focused under real-life and less-than-ideal weather circumstances and at extended distances will require a tremendous amount of electricity.

And that’s exactly the problem: focusing a beam at long distances would necessitate huge pair of binocular optics, and even then, earth’s atmosphere aberrations, dust, humidity, and weather conditions would prevent focusing the light source to such perfectly slight indentation sizes as are simple and easy to achieve at short distances, as in laser cutting machines.

Even if the optics were large enough to allow concentrating the beam to a spot size of 1 cm many miles away, the laser beam would have to be over 10.000 times as powerful to achieve the same power density and heat. This is due to the fact that the region over which the overall power of the beam is spread develops in direct proportion to the diameter of the focus squared.

You may even use simple retro reflecting devices to direct most (easily over 90%) of the beam straight back at the attacker if you want to be truly cruel when defending yourself from laser strikes. Those can be devices or coatings that are similar (or even identical, depending on the wavelength) to what is already used on high visibility reflectors, road markers, and high gain theatre screens, or whatever is most appropriate and applicable.

Simply use them in a cunning way, and opponents will be blinded by their own laser beam. It’s a cheap, easy, very basic, and incredibly powerful countermeasure against laser strikes if done correctly. Why are military researchers working on futuristic “laser weapons,” and why are lasers used on present vehicles?

Those “beam weapons” aren’t really meant to scorch tanks or burn through armor; instead, they’re frequently used to BLIND sensors (permanently or temporarily). to disable or destroy pricey night vision, infrared, or traditional cameras, as well as humans viewing through targeted optics (Since 1998 using weapons only to intentionally blind humans permanently would be against the UN conventions though).

A heat-seeking missile, for example, will have a difficult time hitting its target if the heat seeker is fried by a powerful enough laser. And, much as the human eye focuses light into the retina, cameras do all of the concentrating internally to gather enough light and direct it onto their psychological effect, it doesn’t take much light to destroy them.

That is also why laser pointers and CD players are labeled with warning stickers. That is also why running around airports pointing guns at planes is so dangerous and unlawful. Not because they could cause the planes to melt or be damaged, but because they will obliterate the pilots’ vision. Because a blind adversary has a difficult time fighting effectively, the military is naturally interested in creating and employing such weapons, which it has done for many years.


To be clear, we’re talking about a powerful laser weapon capable of blinding and damaging the sensors on smart weapons like incoming missiles, How Powerful Would A Laser Need To Be To Disable A Abrams Battle Tank? Within the visual range, laser-guided bombs and unmanned aerial vehicles/drones, as well as hostile aircraft and ships, can and will be a very important and capable weapon.

This is due to the fact that it can effectively transform smart weapons that use optical sensors into “dumb” WW2 weaponry. If its ability to steer towards its objective has been destroyed early enough, it will normally approach at a highly “wrong” trajectory, entirely missing the target.

Optical sensors, unlike vehicle coverings or armor, are difficult, if not impossible, to defend from high-powered beams at or near the wavelength they need to look for and locate their target. However, as valuable as that “alone” is, it is still a very different type of software than really blazing through a Tank’s Armor and such things.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is capable of destroying an Abrams tank?

The Abrams is the world’s hardest tank and can withstand a lot of punishment, but not at this level. Simply explained, the main gun round from an Iowa-class battleship will easily kill the Abrams.

In battle, how many Abrams tanks have been destroyed?

553 Abrams tanks have been decommissioned. Enemy fire totally destroyed or damaged 14 of them. 23 M1A1s were lost and during Gulf War. This included 7 killed by friendly fire and 2 crippled aircraft destroyed (to prevent them from falling into enemy hands).

How many Abrams does the United States have?

The M1A1 tank for the US Army has been completed. The US Army and Marine Corps, as well as the militaries of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, have received over 8,800 M1 and M1A1 tanks. New M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams tanks are nearing completion for Foreign Military Sales.

Is it possible to destroy an Abrams at the age of 72?

The main combat tank M1A2 Abrams is undoubtedly the greatest in the world. Yes, Russia is making a lot of noise about the Armata tank family, but the Abrams have been in combat and is extremely difficult to kill. The third T-72 launched a shell that carved a groove in the Abrams’ armor at a range of around 400 yards.

Leave a Comment