How many T-34s would it take to knock out a single M1A2 Tusk

>>33870233
maximum ammo load + 1

Is OP a faggot?

>>33870253
OP here
yes

>>33870250
Where would that last t34 even penetrate? Even the rear would probably be too armored. Would they make a pyramid of t34s and try to top attack?

>>33870290
Last t34 drives right up to Abrams, the crew unloads all the ammo minus 1HE shell and places as much of it as they can under the Abrams. Drive a couple hundred yards away and fire that last shell into the ammo pile. Oughtta do the trick.

>>33870233
41

>>33870233
T-34s weren't built in enough numbers to take on an M1. After about the first 42 went up in flames, crews would abandon their vehicles and run.

>>33870290
The last one would mobility kill the Abrams and then put every round it had into the rear of the turret.

>>33870233
Well, if we consider the damage values of the T-34 and how much HP the Abrams has, factoring in the armor...

>>33870290
>Even the rear would probably be too armored.
No. Hell, the back half of the sides are vulnerable, not to mentiont he entire basket. All the armor goes to the front, where it matters. The amount of T-34s required would be equal to how many rounds the Abrams fires in the time it takes for the T-34s to cover that 2 miles, plus or minus one or two to take into account of the turret moving about.

>>33870233
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOL00YjWbHI

>>33870795
>I'm so fucking dumb the post

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/85_mm_air_defense_gun_M1939_(52-K)

>175mm RHA
>penetrating 600m+ RHA

the answer is how many T-34s it takes for a M1 to run out of ammunition, fuel, and patience in addition to how many dicks can op gobble on before he chokes

>>33871137
>Rear of the M1 is 600mm RHA
My fucking sides.

>>33871137
i can gobble quite a few before i choke don't you worry

File: m1-abrams-tank-firing-hd-wallpaper-1741-full.jpg (397KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 1920x1080px

>Abrams runs out of ammo
>Time to bug out
>Perhaps blinds some of the T-34s using the coax and other MGs to knock out vision blocks
>Abrams takes off away from the battlefield
>Probably runs out of fuel at some point
>Doesn't matter, T-34s have broken down while trying to pursue
>Horde of dismounted T-34 crews tries to rush Abrams
>Gunned down by MGs

>>33871167
>sides
were talking about the rear, retard

>>33871989
>inb4 vatniks shouting uraaaaa

>>33870233
>the Abrams is completely immobile.
>>33871989
>>Abrams takes off away from the battlefield

Learn to fucking read

>>33871989
>implying vatniks don't give up, charge into the sides of the abrams to immobilize it
>vatniks realize they can't penetrate it so they all sit on top of the tank waiting for something to happen
>free amusement park rides like mother Russia promised

The M1 calls the airforce after it runs out of ammo.

>>33870233
Well the M1 has an ammo capacity of 42 rounds, so probably 43 T-34s.

>>33872045
Abrams doesn't give a shit. It'll move and it'll run over the pathetic T-34s.
Abrams does what Abrams wants.

>>33870233
> Assuming they start at top speed because I don't know the Acceleration of a T-34

Takes about 3 minutes 40 seconds to reach the Abrams.
At 6 rounds per minute max rate of fire, it can get off about 22 rounds.

So 25 T-34s rush the Abrams, maximum of 22 get wrecked as they close, 2 elevate their guns and literally just get in the way of the Abrams' turret and immobilize it.

Last one tries to damage the hatch enough to get it open and drop a grenade down in it. Or maybe tries to chip away at its armor.

A T-34 could probably penetrate the armor by getting really close in the rear and hitting the area where the turret meets the chassis.

>>33873163
Maybe if the T-34 drove right up to the Abrams, lined up muzzle to muzzle and fired...all without the Abrams moving or shooting it then maybe an Abrams would be destroyed.

>>33872130
Kek

>>33872944
>6 rpm
completely wrong even the most crippled and lanky of loaders can pull off 6 seconds, if their good 3 seconds in combat. even shitty slav autoloader designs can pull of 7 seconds

>>33874022
also activate saudi/iraqi nigger loader techniques like using the ready racks so they can fit like 60 rounds or some shit and lap load like a mad retard so we can bring the rof down to like 2 seconds

>>33874022
For 4 minutes continuous fire with a human loader? Pretty sure 6/min is meant to be max for sustained fire.

Whatever - 39 T-34s then.Still a ridiculous exchange rate.

File: 1492615213809.jpg (142KB, 680x709px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 680x709px

>>33871137
>how many dicks can op gobble on before he chokes
scientists have yet to determine
pic related

>>33870233
1 T-34-100 from the rear

>>33870233
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY2FR8YFYpY

I don't even see how it would be possible.

You might as well be asking how many T-34s it would take to knock out an Iowa, if the Iowa was on land.

How many T-34s would it take to knock out that Abrams if Hans-Ulrich Rudel was CAS, providing air cover for the Abrams?

>>33875695

How much ammo, fuel, and amphetamines does Rudel have at his disposal?

>>33875702

Enough amphetamines to make a truck driver blush. Fuel and ammo for a typical Stuka squadron supplied at a nearby base. He would have to re-arm once empty. But he would never need to sleep.

>>33875720

Then we are dealing with a problem with no solution, the area would be so saturated with kills that none of the fresh T-34s would be able to even see the Abrams due to all the other dead T-34s in the way.

>>33875727

The bigger question is could the Soviet industrial machine produce T-34s faster than an Abrams and Rudel could destroy them?

>>33875735

Given infinite ammo and inexhaustible parts/fuel?

No.

File: x6DM0PT_d.jpg (44KB, 640x417px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 640x417px

itt: people who think the Abrams has it's maximum armour everywhere

it would take an Iraqi Abrams crew stupid enough to drive into an ambush, and enough static T-34s to get a side shot off under 100m.

>>33875841
This, IIRC modern MBTs are usually protected up to 20-30mm from the rear, granted that is modern autocannon but still no match to 85mm WWII gun.

>>33875841
>>33876032

I'm sorry but your theoretical bench racing about armor thickness and things people aren't even thinking about in the heat of combat are completely refuted by the above historically accurate photograph of a Stuka and Abrams mopping the floor with the entire Soviet tank force.

>>33876047
RRREEEEEE LUFTWAFFEBOOS
how do we bring A-10s in to this?

>>33876032
Impossibr! Abrams invincible, 2000mm RHA in alll directions, including from below and above. Fucking vatniks.

>>33870233
>How many T-34s would it take to knock out a single M1A2 Tusk II?
all of them

>>33870795
>The amount of T-34s required would be equal to how many rounds the Abrams fires
btw it's not entirely sure every round would in effect kill a t-34. probable but not a sure thing. some might require 2-3 shots of rod.

>>33870516

XAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAX

YUO ARE LIKE CHILD

>>33876047
Abrams has never met Soviet tank force in combat.

hm.. could an Abrams overpen a T-34s side and theoretically pen a second one?

>>33876311
now THATS a good qestion

>>33876311
possible but it's equally possible it will do negligible damage to both of them.

>>33870233
However many shots the Abrams has, I'd send ten extra 34s just to make sure. If the Abrams is receiving the occasional supply run of shells the battlefield would be absolutely covered in burning 34s. Casualties are going to be massive for the t-34s but the end result will probably be them putting their guns up against the Abrams and firing from several directions while at least one of them is engaged in a rousing match of cannon fencing.

>>33876278
Has turned plenty of soviet era tanks much better than t-34s into scrap though.

>>33876354
even if it passed though the ammo/fuel/kompot storage?

>>33876364
even then it's possible it will do nothing but most of the tank is pretty inert for through shots. that's why i said what i said. and it the t-34s load light on ammo like 5 a piece it would be hard to aim for it.

File: Aluminium_plate_spalling.gif (27KB, 150x165px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 150x165px

>>33876367
what about the fuck ton of spalling?

>>33876369
lets say spalling would disable the first tank, how much energy would the projectile still have after "leaving" vehicle number one and even trying to pen vehicle number two

>>33876369
nothing. tiny fragments of metals flying around won't kill a tank. it can hurt the crew some that's it.

>>33876369
Did T-34s even have a spall liner?

Another question I suppose should be asked is what type of T-34? There's variants. The early war T-34s probably couldn't do shit.

>>33876381
thats the qestion anon is asking.

>>33876382
that tank may not be destroyed but it would be disabled, which is to the same effect right?

>>33876384
Early war T-34s could easily defeat the rear armor.

>>33876389
>that tank may not be destroyed but it would be disabled
if the rod doesn't hit anything critical it won1t be disabled at all, and if it hits anything critical that part will be disabled. engine or turret ring, or gun. frankly the gun is the only part that would take the t-34 out of the game entirely for the abrams.

>>33876398
if the crews have been turned to kompot by high speed metal shards, would it count as disabled?

>>33876382
Spalling can easily murderfuck the crew, not just injure them. It's been a major threat in tank warfare since the very first ones rolled across the battlefields of WWI. A sabot round slamming straight through your tank and into another is almost certainly going to make a fuckton of spalling.

File: 1491946044313.gif (297KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 500x281px

>>33876403
>murderfuck
nice anon

>>33876354
Impossible. DU is incendiary.

>>33876402
it's not like that more like somewhat worse than being hit with flex sparks that are slightly bigger and fly faster. bad for the eyes if you don't have googles on.

>>33876403
you must be thinking about the hesh not the rod

>>33876436
i think you under estamte the danger of spalling

>>33876449
from a rod you get a totally different spalling than a hesh round. they will be tiny burning drops of metal mostly. causing only superficial damage and slowing quickly due to air resistance.

File: 1416578585308.jpg (26KB, 377x377px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 377x377px

The fact that anyone seriously thinks a round will go right through with no real effect is disturbing. Regardless of round type if it goes through the crew compartment someone's either dead, dying, or severely injured. Since we're probably shooting head at the start on that's pretty much guaranteed something important is getting fucked. Good shot the engine or some other critical bit behind the crew is going to get beyond fucked too.

If you shoot a WWII tank with a modern tank round capable of shooting right through it and penetrating the tank behind it and do nothing but put a small hole in it the tank and it's crew are EXTREMELY lucky.

>>33876457
oh btw it's a different matter if the rod shatters but that requires serious armor the t-34 hardly sported. i think the rod would go though without much effort unless it struck the glacis at a very bad angle.

>>33876470
"you see tovarish, if enemy gun can penetrate us either way, we just make our tanks out of rubber!"

>>33876476
But Sergei, what are we of doing about fire?

>>33876470
face it the perpetrators today are simply not designed for soft skinned vehicles. your best bet would be the M830

>>33876487
>perpetrators
>first thought is someone in da hood breaking into a car with a plastic wrap "window"

It's not just going to sail on through leaving everyone unharmed. Someone's coming out injured and shit's getting broken when that round slams through. Especially when head on. Just looking at a T-34 from the front it's blatantly obvious unless the shot is a bad one the T-34 and crew are about to have a very bad day in some fay or another. It would honestly be harder to miss something important to the tank shooting head on. From the side is a different story but still, then you're just plain exposing the engine. No engine means tank no move.

>>33876470
It's faggots getting their terminal tank ballistics from war thunder
https://youtu.be/coWJDfcdR60?t=66

>>33876482
Is of smoke signal for comrade assistance.

File: 1352203189840.gif (422KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 640x480px

>>33876637
Thank you for posting that anon.

>>33876522
fuck auto-correct man

>>33870250
49 that would be 49.

>>33876637
>hitting soft steel of t-34 is the same as hitting concrete slabs
please!

>>33876901
Did you miss the part where they shot a car? You know, those things not considered armored at all?

>>33876932
yeah went right through without doing much. remove the flammable shit like carpet and make it miss the engine it will be like nothing happened.

File: 1336596309487.gif (226KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 800x600px

>>33877020
So what you're saying is you have to render it non-functional to make it as if nothing happened, good argument.

>>33871137
are you really that retarded to think the back is 600mm RHA?
its around 50 on the flat parts with the rear sides being around 80 and the frontal sides being 100+ (+ skirts which makes them resistant to alot WWII tier weaponry)

>>33870250
Fpbp as always

>>33870233
dak paneel pantser

>>33870233
Depends on the quality and morale of the crews, I'd have thought. Realistically speaking people aren't going to willingly throw themselves at a superior tank even if they're likely to win through sheer weight of numbers.

File: 5235345.png (187KB, 1323x948px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1323x948px

>>33877070
>ts around 50 on the flat parts with the rear sides being around 80 and the frontal sides being 100+