is there any modern MBT that would be able to withstand a direct

the t-14 armata

Ur mums gaping meat tunnel

>>29927306
Nope. 750 kilos = giant fuck you to any vehicle short of a Battleship. But good luck hitting a tank with a cannon like that.

>>29927341
pretty sure it could fuck a battleship up too if it was firing AP

its 16.5 inch gun is bigger than the guns found on the iowa battleship

>>29927306

Yeah, the W33D-B14217, an experimental MBT developed by Jamaica.

>>29927306
is there a 420mm gun that would be able to hit a modern MBT?

>>29927513

OP isn't asking that, he's asking about the hypothetical scenario in which it actually happens.

I could hit that shit all day long as it wasn't Afghan MonsterKush that shit'll fuck you up man fuck you up real good, man. Real good.

>>29927374
It's a wider shell, but much lighter. The 16"/50 Mark 7 on the Iowa fired a 1225 kilo shell. 750 kilos in naval gunnery is similar to the 14"/50 on the New Mexico class, which was not really enough to deal with Second World War battleships.

>>29927708
>which was not really enough to deal with Second World War battleships.
Maybe not the most modern ones, but seeing as there were still plenty of older battleships, mostly armed with similar armament, they did just fine. It's like the Sherman's 75mm gun as opposed to a 90mm gun.

>>29927513
Even if it's a near miss, for a variable quantity of a near miss, it'll still cause kills of various sorts, mostly mobility and communications.

>>29927306
From anything save a paint round or the like? No.

>>29927529
well, since this is all hypoothetical, what color is the sky in your world?

File: XP72-02_zps773a3708.jpg (121KB, 660x437px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 660x437px

>>29927876

Stop being autistic, while its improbable for an MBT to be hit by such a weapon it isn't impossible.

>>29927314
nice meme kiddo

File: 4gfuF3E.jpg (85KB, 540x526px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 540x526px

>>29927876
are you one of those autists who turns the abrams into your personal mary-sue that can never be blown up or destroyed in any combat situation ever

>>29927925
no that's me

>>29927901
oh, i see
this must be about video games
that explains a lot

>>29927925
no, i just pulled them out of the mud, dragged them to the rear, and pulled their packs
tell me about your experience with tanks, anon
and find a better insult while you're at it

>>29928080
>i worked on an abrams in real life that means it getting hit directly by a 16.5 inch shell won't blow it up


yeah and i fucked your fat piece of shit mother but that doesn't mean a harpoon won't bring her down

>>29927306
No modern tank could sustain the damage caused by a 420 mm gun.

>>29928103
your response means you have none of the experience i asked about, which means you are very well suited to answer questions about hypothetical situations

>>29928144
experience doesnt change reality

>as a mother

No, even an inert shell of that size would fuck it up. An HE one would literally throw the tank.

>>29928169
and you don't get to define it
come on, try harder than that

>>29927306
could that thing even survive firing that gun?
the supports look retarded thin for the task.
i'd imagine it would flip over at least.

File: 1462758635132.jpg (63KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 450x600px

>>29927374
>1943+73
>Still using APBC over HCHE

What are you, the IJN?

>>29927708
>14"/50 on the New Mexico class, which was not really enough to deal with Second World War battleships.

All battleships were rated up to 14 inches. The Bismark class also had 14 inch guns. Actual WW2 ships were very few in number than actual ships in use made during or after WW1.

>>29928144
well if you know as much as you claim, would an abrams survive a round from 420mm gun?

probably not,the tank structural integrity would be heavily crippled

>>29927314
He said survive, not brake down and catch fire during a military parade

>>29927306
No. Just like there wouldn't be a 420mm that would be remotely fieldable on anything that doesn't float.
>BL4Z-1T would need bunker wall-thick roads to traverse, unless you plan on rebuilding them every time you roll the column over it
>and a fuckhuge amount of open space (even for a tank) to roll around and rotate its turret, unless you plan on building it fixed forward like it's 1929
>and a huge support network, because this thing is NOT going to be able to defend itself well

>>29928185
>you dont get to

i just did

now fuck off autist

>>29928347
bismarck had 15 inch guns nerd

File: bagger288.jpg (69KB, 630x319px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 630x319px

>>29928790
>take this
>replace excavation equipment with shitload of armor, huge cannon, and a shitload of secondary weapons
>power with nuclear reactor

we bolos now

File: image.jpg (44KB, 596x600px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 596x600px

>>29928080
Tankerfag here. Got to be able to pull pack inna 30~ minutes. Good times

>>29927306

The armor would deform like an aluminum can and the tank itself would be flung several meters from the impact at least with the turret flying an opposite direction.

It would be very dead, but still recognizable as a tank. Kinda like those pictures of melted Sheridans.

>>29932040
Wew lad.

Its being hit with a shell, not a train.

>>29928103
Holy fucking kek

>>29927306
AP or HE?

Either way, probably not.

If you look at the pure penetrative power of the 16"s on the Iowa for example with their Heavy AP, it's less than what an old 105mm Tank cannon can throw out, but in this case it's more about the weight that matters and pure KE that would go into it from the mass alone.

Tanker here.

an Abrams might be able to survive a direct frontal hit from a 2B1 Oka simply because the round might not be able to penetrate the frontal armor sense it's a low velocity mortar shell, but it's possible it'd wound kill the crew inside from that hard of a hit. Hell I was knocked out in the gunner's hull just from my driver hitting a ditch.
However the 2B1 Oka used properly as a mortar could probably get through the top of the turret.