>>28941208 A detonation underneath it isn't the same thing as one detonating on the engine deck or the top of the turret. The bottom armor is far more significant than the top armor, not to mention if you hit the top you are going to be wrecking a LOT of extremely helpful electronics and sights.
Alright, I'll admit it detonating on top of the engine deck would probably kill the tank, but it actually hitting there is extremely unlikely. OP did not specify where the shell is hitting the Abrams. It is far more likely for it to hit somewhere on the frontal arc.
The armor on top of the turret is of similar thickness to the armor on the belly though, all you would do is fuck up some of the optics.
Had a Warrior IFV survive being hit broadside with a 120mm HESH round fired by a Challenger 1 in the Gulf War so I doubt a 122mm FRAG-HE round fired from a 38 calibre artillery gun will do a heck of a lot against an MBT
>>28940905 If the howitzer itself hits the Abrams, it's probably gonna be a nasty crash. For the howitzer crew. The sheer tonnage is in the Abrams favour
For the rounds it fires, not all that much. I mean, it might temporarily disable the tank through shock, track-shedding, injuring the crew maybe. It'll break antenna, sights and all that useful stuff that has to be exposed.
Really though the rounds were too small to really mess up MBT targets by the '80s. At least the 152mm+ ones could get cluster munitions going on. Though the light howitzer still has a place in modern warfare, it'll still fuck up a lot of useful targets and gets rounds down range better than a mortar.
It's kinda funny looking back at the late cold war, and whilst the soviets were really into their focus on artillery, the general support NATO forces could get was generally better due to the ubiquity of M109s and their 155mm being used by pretty much everyone, rather than having to rely on a lot of both towed and self-propelled 122mm guns for the majority of tubes available as the various soviet forces did.
You are so full of shit, the russians had tons of arty, stop being autistic. Their SPG were also issued HEAT rounds for self-defense against armored targets that would make them a dangerous threat against all but later model MBT frontal armor.
>>28941639 you don't know the half of it >argues that the US attacked Japan because it was competing with it economically >tell him that i've read up on it and that it was because of Japanese expansion and the Sanctions imposed by the US >He says he doesn't study wars, he prefers to study how things happen historically >How things happen >but not war >because things don't happen
He's like the cuck crash course history guy. He throws in his bias in historical events
>>28941707 >He throws in his bias in historical events not going to defend your retard brother but history prior of the invention of video cameras is nothing but some dudes writing down shit from their point of view with their bias. and even with modern tech you still influence by what you chose to show and how. there is no such thing as unbiased, objective history.
>>28941797 I know, but he throws his own personal bias. I realize that those who write history might be biased. But when looking at history one has to be as emotionally removed as possible. Even if there is no such thing as unbiased history, one has to try to look at it as unbiased as possible. Instead even if he is presented with a straight up empirical fact, he uses his own bias to interpret what it means and goes as far as to use confirmation biases and anecdotes to argue his point.
I usually give my dad shit when he uses it and he's learnt to shut up. But goddamn my uncle is a new level of "retarded academic"
>>28941797 >but history prior of the invention of video cameras is nothing but some dudes writing down shit from their point of view with their bias.
What horseshit. A video can still manipulate a POV and be misused to create a false narrative bias.
The whole point of actual history from it's inception with Thucydides is to attempt objectivity and present the facts. Just because something can never be 100% unbiased does not mean it is down on the same level as the imbecilic VICE shit you regularly ingest.
>>28941890 Details of the incident were discussed in parliament: >During the conflict there were a further three incidents involving friendly fire in which British service men were injured.
>The first of these occurred shortly after 1100 local time on 26 February. An officer attached to 1 Staffords received shrapnel wounds when a Warrior vehicle was attacked by a Challenger tank of the Scots Dragoon Guards. Personnel from 1 Staffords were guarding prisoners of war when a Challenger tank from the Scots Dragoon Guards began to engage nearby Iraqi armoured vehicles, which later turned out to be abandoned. The tank mistakenly fired on the vehicles of 1 Staffords, hitting the Warrior, before moving off. Visibility at the time was reduced by a dust storm to about 400 m. All the Staffords' vehicles were marked with the inverted V device and carried fluorescent orange panels. The four personnel in the Warrior were unharmed, but shrapnel injured an officer who had dismounted from another vehicle. Once the mistake was realised, the Scots Dragoon Guards returned to the scene and evacuated the officer to hospital.
>>28941523 >Thinks the US and Russia aren't in on it
Sure, I wouldn't go as far to say that they colluded to make up a war, but they're definitely in on it. We've been playing keep away with Russia in the middle east for a long ass time and we send a ridiculous amount of support to Saudi Arabia (where Osama was from), who perpetuate Sunni-Shia warfare by DIRECTLY FUNDING RADICAL ISLAMISM.
Please tell me how a shell composed primarily of much softer materials than steel moving at only 700m/s is going to penetrate several layers of steel, depleted uranium, and various ceramics via kinetic energy.
>>28942053 >We've been playing keep away with Russia no I mean my uncle straight up believes that they have a master plan. Not even that they realize that each country has spheres of influence, but that both of them have planned out what will happen in the Middle East together.
As an example he believes that both states were in on 9/11 in order to have the US and then Russia get more involved in the Middle East. YES I SAID IT, RUSSIA WAS IN ON 9/11 ACCORDING TO HIM
I walked out on him after he claimed that the US assassinated Allende (when he clearly committed suicide) and that Pinotchet was groomed his entire life in order to overthrow Allende ( when he was just the most influential general in the Chilean Army at the time that was anti Allende. We're Chilean, though I live in Canada)
>>28942132 Anon, in this sense, "kill" is not the same thing as "destroy". A "kill" is anything that makes the vehicle combat ineffective. Mobility kills, mission kills, and firepower kills are all examples of kills which do not require penetration. Of course, there are kills which do mean destruction, including my favorite, the catastrophic kill, as helpfully demonstrated by pic related.
>>28942258 >Only a retard would fire ineffective munitions against a heavy tank in the hopes that it explodes the gun periscope so you don't die 5 seconds later.
I'm sorry anon, but this is videogame logic
there are plenty of instances in the real world of lighter vehicles shooting crappy munitions at big tanks to either disable them or scare the crews off. just read the accounts of armor crews from WW2 to see what that's all about.
>only a retard Ukranians doing it to good effect with their Gvozdikas
>ineffective munitions Better than no munitions. The actual physical damage is still possibly there, and a tank isn't going to sit around taking hits either way. They'll back off and then search for targets.
>explodes the gun periscope Not the only goal in mind, but certainly one of the major factors
>periscope Newsflash, tanks main sights aren't periscopes any more. Rather, they're nice, juicy cameras. Pic related. As you can see, it's built into an armored "doghouse". The doors close when in an artillery barrage, so fragmentation doesn't knock it out.
>>28942438 You're a moron. 122mm HE is not for anti-tank usage, despite the occasions it may or may not have been effective. If they had proper AT munitions, they would not bother using artillery for firing on tanks. Ironically enough they even made HEAT shells for 122mm guns, but the ukrainians are broke-dick retards with literal PTRS-41 Anti-Tank rifles.
>there are plenty of instances in the real world of lighter vehicles shooting crappy munitions at big tanks to either disable them or scare the crews off. just read the accounts of armor crews from WW2 to see what that's all about.
>just read the accounts of armor crews from WW2 to see what that's all about.
>>28942480 Of course not. It's a measure of desperation, and one which has caused many casualties. The point being, it WORKS, and is pretty much the only thing they have that does.
Also, the anti-tank rifles have been handy for their low firing signature and ability to penetrate Russi- oops, Separatist APCs and IFVs while being essentially immune to ERA. And they have them. Ukraine is in full on desperation mode.
>>28942629 >>28942600 >>28942594 >>28942551 >>28942546 >acts of desperation >it is not effective! >acts of desperation >but why are they not using ATGMs! >acts of desperation >so ineffective! >acts of desperation > XY is much better! >acts of desperation Quality thread with quality anons.
>>28942600 Are you fucking retarded? No, that isn't the definition of it. And that's meaningless semantics anyways. They're using them like fucking towed anti-tank guns in WW2.
>>28942629 Not really, no. They generally expend only as much as a traditional tank cannon. And it's worse for logistics when a tank rolls over your front line because neither your ATGMs nor your tanks can kill the damn things. Is this a difficult concept? The realities of combat override all.
>>28940905 It it hits the track, the tank is immobilized. If it hits the ammo, the tank is fucked. It would take a few hits if they spammed each other at a distance with deflecting armor forward, but the 2S1 definitely has a better profile than the Abrams.
>>28942671 what did u say about me I am a pro tanker in armored assault 1, 2 AND 3, my online friends and I have over 9000 confirmed dead tanks so I know what I am talking about when I blatantly shitpost on the internet!
>>28942470 if it got hit in the rear of the track it would not be "nothing" 1. It would be disabled and nothing would function
2 gas driven engines are not impossiable to destory.
3. if it got hit in the under carrage it would kill everyone inside and also disabled.
4. Sabot round under the frond section of the turret can knock out any tank regradless of armor
keep dreaming kid that M2A1 Abrams might not be cook-off tank death material but it will be disabled thus useless.
Tank fags are dislussional although tanks now days are far better than any tank made in 70's. compisite is hard to distory with one shell but no modern tank made in 2016 now days has no auto loader so most tanks fire more shells more quickly
Unless where talking sand nig tanks or anything made before 1989 then fuck off.
>>28942357 >Newsflash, tanks main sights aren't periscopes any more. Rather, they're nice, juicy cameras. Pic related. As you can see, it's built into an armored "doghouse". The doors close when in an artillery barrage, so fragmentation doesn't knock it out. the cameras aren't in the doghouse dude. You only have a vertically stabilized mirror and attendant stabilizer there.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.