Could a M1A1 Abrams take out a Maus?

>>34636445
nothing can take out a maus my grandpa was a crewman on one in 1944 and it got hit by a hijacked v2 rocket and came out unscathed

>>34636445
Yeah probably. Sabots ain't no joke son.

Unrelated though, I do want to see what a modernized or futurisitic version of an American "maus/ratte" super heavy tank would look like if our armored generals were given infinite monies.

>>34636445
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW2vrpcmScA

>>34636445
yea most likely

>>34636510
I didn't know an Abrams could carry 100 shells.

>>34636445
Yes.

The Abrams has thicker armor than the Maus, and despite being less than half the weight, carries a main gun almost as large. And with advances in shell design since WWII, the Abrams' gun is actually more powerful than the larger caliber gun on the Maus. A single shot from the Abrams could penetrate the Maus from any angle, while the Maus could only kill the Abrams from the rear. Which would be almost impossible since the Abrams is much faster and more compact.

Mounting two main guns left the Maus wildly under-armored and under-engined for its size by modern tank design standards. The 75mm gun is useless against a modern tank, so it's just wasting weight.

>>34636689
>Which would be almost impossible since the Abrams is much faster and more compact.

I wonder how far away the abrams would have to be for the maus turret to be able to follow it

By this I mean the abrams essentially driving in a circle around the maus at top speed. I'm sure the max rotation speed for the maus is out there somewhere, maybe some autist anon can do the math?

>>34636445

>what is HEAT

yeah the maus would get fucked easily.

>>34636464
>I do want to see what a modernized or futurisitic version of an American "maus/ratte" super heavy tank would look like if our armored generals were given infinite monies.

like an angel.

>>34636445
stand off until it becomes immobile from running out of gas or needing to cross an obstacle (trench, creek, mine field, etc), then call in a artillery and/or close air support on it.

Not a chance in hell. The Maus has not only thicker armour, its gun is vastly more powerfull than the one on the Abrams.

The abrams can be penned frontaly by 125mm slavguns and we all know they are very, very poor copies of German 128mm ones.

The only thing the Abrams realy has on the Maus is speed but we all know it is impossible for the Abrams to outspeed an 128mm AP round.

>>34636445
The only advantage the Maus has over the Abrams is range.

If they started out 5+ miles apart in an open field, the Maus might be able to destroy the Abrams if it could immobilize it and just pound away on it from afar.

>>34636817
except the Abrams has much better optics and FCS

>>34636463
>my grandpa was a crewman on one
why not regale us with more tales from dear old opa. he seem to have a fertile mind, and im sure he shared more.

>>34636809

lmao

>>34636866

not him but my grandpa told a story about capturing an unused v2 and one of the guys in his division happened to be a mechanic. Dude used some bubble gum and elbow grease to get it working again. They aimed the v2 at an approaching maus and fired it.... all the trees for a quater mile were flattened but the maus kept moving and firing.

no way an abrams could take one on

>>34636852

Pertinently false. German optics were far, far ahead of its time (Vampir NV system comes to mind) and stereo-range finding trumps laser range finding systems.

Dust in the air gives of false positives for laser-range finders and stereo-range finding systems arent affected by this. Coupled with a talented, well educated German crew, they would be able to calculate ballistics just as good as a computer would do.

Face it, the only tank that could possibly, conceivably take on a Maus would be a Leopard 2A7 with the recently developed 130mm gun.

>>34636463
>>34636883
you heard it here on /k/ first.
german überpanzers were proof against german vergeltungswaffens.

>>34636445
Why the hell did the Germans build this stupid shit?

>>34636445
where is the maus on the pic?

>>34636943
i would bet on a leo1a5 against a maus any time.
and the leo1 is a joke by modern standards.

File: Hitler.png (149KB, 329x318px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 329x318px

>>34637076
Hitlers littler weewee

>>34636715
The WoT maus (probably not correct but i didnt want to spend an hour researching it) a traverse rate of 15 degrees/sec, this is approximately .25 radians/second or 1 radian in 4 seconds. Say that the abrams can go 40mph in an arc of any size (also probably inaccurate), this is about 60 ft/sec. Set 1 rad/4 sec = 60 ft/1 sec, and solve for radians.

Tl;dr about 240 feet

File: 072-Maus.jpg (166KB, 995x680px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 995x680px

>>34637076

>Maus
>Stupid

It would've slaughtered IS-2's and Pershings with remarkable ease with the 128mm (complete overkill i know) and the rest of the tanks it would face could be easily be dealt with the 75mm coax. No enemy tank either in service or planned could destroy it.

>>34637106

Here, a very impressive sight to behold.

>>34636943
Remind me again about how the Maus could see through a smoke screen without thermal optics

>>34637149

The Leopard 1 is indeed a joke. The 75mm of the Maus would be enough to destroy the Leo-1 while the relatively puny 105mm would indeed hit hard but fail to penetrate the Maus because we established before that the 120mm of the Abrams cannot defeat the armour of the Maus.

>>34637183
>or planned
no that's not right, both the t95 and the t30 could take it apart.

a couple of isu-152 could wreck it from ambush also. maybe the tank would remain intact but it would be immobile and the crew all dead.

>>34637183
ive spent a lifetime loving german tanks, but even i would be the first to call the maus a poorly thought out weapon.

The only way a maus could beat an Abrams is if it managed to ambush it from the side at almost point blank range, using it's two cannons to shoot off the Abram's gun barrel and sever it's tracks, then either leave it there as a bunker or drive around it trying to shoot for weakpoints like vents and cupolas, might be able to start a fire inside.

>>34637237
the problem with your theory is the distance. also the 75mm gun would never pen a hulldown leo1 turret. the leo1 would take it apart with apfsds from 2-3km distance the maus couldn't even aim at it or hope to hit it. leo1 better mobility scopes and fire control would give it a win and it's gun easily penetrates any rolled homogeneous steel crap.

>>34636809
is this bait

I genuinely wanna know

This might be the smartest thing ive ever seen finally people have realized the superiority of German armor and how even modern tanks would tremble in fear over the maus and its 128mm gun that us far superior to any modern gun because it is 3-8mm bigger than them therefore it can out range and penetrate far more than the 120s and 125s

>>34637256
abrams is not very well armored from behind, probably any ww2 tank can kill it it would take a while sure but they would get a kill once the abrams is immobile.

the way i would kill an abrams, is lure it to cresting some dune or anything and shoot the tracks. disabling the abrams in a position it can not fire at me due to insufficient gun depression. then i could maneuver behind it and shoot it to craps. with just about any thank even a better t-34 or sherman variant it could be done with a bit of luck and overconfidence from the abrams crew.

>>34637277
has to be trolling nobody can be this stupid.

>>34637277
It's bait, materials science has advanced extremely as has ballistics, it's not about the diameter of the gun so much the velocity and perpetrator type.

>>34637327
I just think you are brainwashed by propaganda that the US and NATO has thrown at you about how advanced their tanks are when in reality they are easily out ranged and killed by WW2 era tanks like the Maus and King Tiger

>>34637076
German engineers trying to look busy to avoid getting sent to fight in the Ostfront.

>>34636445
The only part of a Maus that could possibly survive a direct hit would be the mantlet, and even then it would probably cripple the tank to the point it wouldn't be able to fire back.

Fun fact: the Maus is the only armoured vehicle capable of surviving RPG strikes by virtue of its armour being too thick for the jet to penetrate.

>>34637327
*Penetrator
thanks spellcheck :3

>>34637345
You're not fooling me you fucker 1/10

i'm fairly new to /k/ so this might just bee a meme that i'm not getting, but just in case i'm not.
penetration of m829 discarding sabot round
> Point-blank the M829A1 is estimated to penetrate 670 mm (26 in) of steel armor, which decreases to 620 mm (24 in) at 1,000 m (1,100 yd), and to 570 mm (22 in) at 2,000 m (2,200 yd). At 4,000 m (4,400 yd), it is believed to still be able to penetrate 460 mm (18 in) of steel armor.
the maus is really really dead

>>34637204

Its easy, like stated before, the German crew with stereo rangefinding can calculate were the enemy tank realy is and still be able to hit the enemy tank (albeit no so accurately anymore).

>>34637238

The only real problems those tanks and tank destroyers can give to the Maus is with their guns but the Maus is sufficiently armoured to take the hits. The T30 doesnt have a sufficiently armoured hull and both the T95 and the ISU-152 do not have turrets and are easily flanked.

>>34637266

>the problem with your theory is the distance.

Solved by stereo rangefinding, next.

>also the 75mm gun would never pen a hulldown leo1 turret.

Even if the 75mm couldnt pen, its slaved next to a 128mm gun which without a shadow of a doubt, can pen the Leo-1 and turn it to scrap.

>>34637277

What isnt true about it? That the 125mm slavic shitguns are a poor copy of the 128mm? Its completely true.

Many Soviet weapons were German copies or derived from them with a twist (The R1 being a V2 copy, the MiG-15 being a TA-183 copy, the AK being a StG-44 copy with a bit of M1 carbine internals). It took the Soviets a little more time then usual to copy the 128mm gun.

>>34637345
>t. moron who's never heard of how an APFSDS round works

>>34637404
It's a wehraboo bait thread.
I'd still take this over the 5 /pol/-leddit shitfit bait threads that we have had going at any one time for the past year.

>>34636883
Gud anime

File: Gay ass nazi.jpg (67KB, 318x558px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 318x558px

>>34637404
Never underestimate the power of wehraboo denial

>>34637441
>stereo rangefinding
this is objectivly inferior to a laser range finder, however laser rangefinders are not the pinnicle of technology, we have to tech to look through walls using wifi.
>Experimental WW2 tanks vs Experimental WW2 tank
much better topic of conversation
>the gun
the gun is almost irrelevant at this point, it's the shells that will be put through it, which WW2 German tech pales in comparison to modern shells.

>>34637441
>the Maus is sufficiently armoured to take the hits
nope that's my point it can't even take those.
t30 turret frontal armor is thicker than anything on a maus and it has a heavier hitting gun. t95 is just overkill.

>>34636943
>Dust in the air gives of false positives for laser-range finders
Didn't seem to be a problem in either Desert Storm or Iraq 2. Also, your tanks would have been torn apart by air power.

>but the Maus is sufficiently armoured to take the hits.
What about depleted uranium?

>>34637510
>Dust in the air gives of false positives for laser-range finders
>Didn't seem to be a problem in either Desert Storm or Iraq 2.

that's because it's not a thing, it's theoretically possible if the range finder took 1 measurement, it doesn't though, it will take thousands every second, with any anomalous readings being apparent.

>>34637508
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2I0LA4ag_8
rofl some autists had to go there

>>34636445
Yes.

Anything with an L7 could

>>34636445
>Could a sabot round...
Yes. It doesn't matter how big the other tank is, the sabot will rip through the steel armor because it's made from depleted uranium.

>>34637446
I think you're just mad that your modern tanks arent as good as they say they are because you dont have superior German night vision and have to rely on your cheap thermal that only works at night and how good will your sabot do when the Maus kills you from 5km away and you couldnt even see him

>>34636510
Would the Abrams, once it exchausted its ammo supply and assuming something has caused it to get stuck, eventually collapse under the weight of the pile of shells landing on it? Would the German crews be better off just stacking the ammo on the M1 and using the last round to hopefully set it all off?

>>34636463
>When your rockets CEP is 20 miles and you hit a tank.
Sure jan.

Yes, a Maus would of course destroy an M1A1. It's why the thousands of Maus rolled over Europe in an unstoppable wave.

Or maybe it's stupid to build a pillbox with a huge cannon that's about 200 times more expensive than a pillbox but has the ability to move 15 miles before becoming immobile.

File: H2A_Render_M808BScorpion.jpg (321KB, 1920x960px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1920x960px

>>34636464
Honestly probably something along these lines

>>34637356
most plausible reason here for this abortion.

>>34636689

even the fucking 128mm gun is useless against everything whats not a t55 and even that shitter would couse a problem

>>34636799
The abrams wouldn't even need to win by attrition, the 120mm APFSDS an abram's can carry would slice through it.

>>34637183

you sir are a retard, the only reason why we build tanks is MOBILITY combined with firepower, if i want great armor and a fucking 128mm cannon i build a bunker

>>34637441

>do not have turrets and are easily flanked

with that fucking speed the maus has

>>34636943
>>34637237
>Wehraboos
765mm of penetration. That is what the Abram's sabots can penetrate at 2000m, and the maus only had 220mm of armor at its thickest point.

>>34639280
Anon, it's a BIG tank.

>>34640337

jesus the fucking t55 has 200mm turret armour

>>34636510
>>34636510
>implying an abrams could withstand that much shelling without being mission kill
Absolutely ridiculous. Reactive armor isn't magically replenishing and all the sights would be blown to hell.

File: 49de37c803efa40e.jpg (366KB, 1200x739px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 1200x739px

>>34636463
>>34636463
ha! i was on that rocket. after our V-2 penetrated the front of the Maus from a 4.000 meter dive we straight up slapped your grandfathers shit!

here is the photo of him i shot while my buddy gave him a good fist

>>34636510

>when your dwindling line of Maus finally gets closer.. hopefully within kill range
>FOR THE FUHRER
>35 or so shells impact the target and its shrouded in smoke and impact debris
>it has to have penetrated the American tank at this range, victory is ours Hans !
>120mm APFSDS round screams through the smoke and into another Maus
>Abrams is revealed to have light armor spalling and damage to lighting/optical apertures
>also the crew is starting to feel bad about their unfair advantage

I love this webm m8

Also Men of Wars engine is so fucking radical.

>>34639483
Nah, scorpions are pretty lightly armored by tank standards it seems.

>>34637157
Did you learn that rhetoric from an anti-gun liberal?

File: Scorpion - Maus - Abrams M1 - side comparison.png (158KB, 1154x177px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1154x177px

>>34639483
>that shot trap where the turret connects to the hull
Also, image actually relevant to the thread as a whole.

>>34640575
>scorpions being that big
>able to be taken down by .308 assault rifles
I shiggy diggy

File: M808 compared to M820 - Details.jpg (720KB, 2280x1188px) Image search: [Google]

720KB, 2280x1188px

>>34639483
>>34640472
>>34640575
Actual specs for said tank. Nothing on armor (RHA-equivalent and shit) yet, despite multiple inquiries.

>>34640489
Are you unironically taking bait about the size of hitlers penis?

>>34640721
The M808 seems more like a light tank than anything, which makes sense by the universe's standards as it needs to be rapidly deployable and mobile, at least they upgraded the armament on the 820.

File: M850 Grizzly entry.jpg (285KB, 1136x976px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1136x976px

>>34640790
Well, this is the UNSC's heavy tank...
>still air-mobile
>every single visual depiction has it hauled by bog-standard Pelicans, despite the description

>>34640721
>2218
>replacement in 2557
Not even the F-35 is this bad.

>>34636943
>bragging about vampir
>when it's a caveman tier active IR flood
Any vampir-equiped tanks would positively shine on modern night vision

File: 4DdD2uO_d.jpg (76KB, 640x491px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 640x491px

>>34640819
If we're talking about fictional heavy tanks here, the real question is: what would be able to stand up to this sucker?

File: M145D Rhino (composite).jpg (1MB, 1832x2280px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1832x2280px

>>34640915
...Maybe one of these with conventional cannon, assuming top-down APFSDS and direct hit on hatch?
That, or possibly the 440mm field artillery mentioned in one of the novels.

>>34640951
I'd say maybe the 440mm artillery would do it, but keep in mind that this thing's hull has around 210mm of ceramite plating, (no idea on the hardness and armor value but one could assume it's harder than steel by a great margin.) Not sure that the rhino would be able to take it in a 1v1 head on scenario, but like you said if it had the drop on it and got the top hatch it might.

File: hammertankcutaway.jpg (152KB, 1152x714px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1152x714px

>>34640915

>>34636445
Easily, fuck give me a SCAR 17 with some AP rounds and i'd take it down

>>34636510
At what point would the germans retreat if they actually encountered an M1 on the battlefield like that

>>34637494
There was technically nothing stopping the Germans from building a Leopard 1-type vehicle with the resources they had during WWII, but it would still get raped by the 105 variants of the Sherman because the Leo I sucks in the type of warfare that took place in WWII.

>>34640721
>length: 33 feet
>width: 25 feet

Was it really that huge in the games?

It seemed smaller to me but apparently it's bigger than a fucking maus.

File: GDIMammoth2.gif (49KB, 320x213px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 320x213px

>>34636464
Probably like this.

>>34640836
underrated

File: M850 Grizzly (composite, HW2).jpg (145KB, 816x495px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 816x495px

>>34641321
Game scaling is *slightly* fucked up. But keep in mind you're usually playing from the perspective of a seven-foot super-soldier.

>>34636510
Silly shit, the Abrams could kill all the Maus while on the move. It should flank the Maus formation negating most Maus gunfire then kill them from the side and rear.

Abrams could lay smoke while moving to further confuse the situation and maneuver within the smoke cloud. Maus couldn't come close in speed.

>>34641543
>Abrams could lay smoke while moving to further confuse the situation and maneuver within the smoke cloud
smoke grenades don't provide a whole lot of room to maneuver, really

>>34636510
>Abrams kills a hundred tanks despite only carrying 42 shells
>Abrams has a 100% ammo rack rate against something as huge as the maus from a little sabot round making a hole through it
>Abrams isn't wrecked immediately due to the sheer impact of a fucking one hundred 128mm shell volley hitting it, followed by the 75mm shells, followed by more larger shells
>The massive number of shells impacting and leaving pits from going a couple hundred millimeters in then exploding doesn't dig through the turrets frontal armor within a couple volleys

The Abrams only survives that because the game has such simple and shit-tier tank simulation, even in War Thunder where tanks are unrealistically tough and can repair destroyed tracks and gun barrels in seconds, the Abrams would get fucking demolished by that much firepower.

File: 1481533849991347087[1].jpg (89KB, 800x453px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 800x453px

Slaps your girls ass in a club.

>>34642346
Those treads make no fucking sense.

>>34642378
nothing about it makes sense because it was made by an artist who doesn't understand the principles behind military hardware

File: 1.jpg (322KB, 1280x640px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 1280x640px

>>34640915
meet Mary Sue: Tank Edition AKA Bolo

>>34637183
No German bridge either in service or planned could support it either.

>>34636445
an m113 could take out a maus
but the maus is more likely to take its self out

>>34642460
Is simple. Drive one Maus into river. Maus is now Dam. Drive second Maus across now empty riverbed.

>>34637441
>AK is a copy of StG-44
>Things that are superficially similar are the same despite fundamental internal differences

>>34636463
sure, your opa was in one of the 2 that were built? bullshit

File: 1482800520804.jpg (80KB, 1178x615px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1178x615px

>>34639483
>>34641399
Nah, more like this with a few additional remotely controlled .50 cals, ATGMs, and a couple of CIWS flak cannons.

>>34641800
>>34640437
Agreed.

I'd love for someone to make a game that realistically simulates vehicle (and foot soldier) combat, handling, and damage, along with decent AI, that allows you to set up detailed battle scenarios to try out some of these hypothetical situations.

File: Heavy_Tank_RA.jpg (74KB, 500x352px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 500x352px

>>34641399
>ask for futurisitic version of an American "maus/ratte"
>American
>posts Soviet tank

File: 1402519671396.gif (2MB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x300px

>>34637076
>>34637157
>>34640489

But Maus project really was the result of Adolf Hitler's growing initiative over armour R&D.

And Adolf's affinity for impressions of raw power meant wasting resources and manpower on mega-artillery and superheavy tanks, despite there being plenty of working designs that proved to be far more succesful as their effectiveness went beyond merely cranking up stats on a given piece.

>>34636463
>crew member on one
>implying that there was more than one maus
it was a wunderwaffe for a reason

>>34637441
You're on crack, STFU.
3/10 because people are actually responding

>>34636689
thicker armor? really what does the abrams have
maus = 220mm

>>34640452
sauce

File: M1 armor.jpg (271KB, 1488x574px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1488x574px

>>34642799

File: IMG-20170723-WA0001.jpg (143KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1600x900px

Does anyone know what kind of tank this is? Is it a Sherman V?

It was used by the Canadians

>>34636817
WWII tank versus tank with Modern MBT HAH!

Any Modern MBT can pen it
Original M68A1 105 mm gun, and is said to be able to penetrate 560 millimeters (22 in) of steel armor at a range of 2,000 meters (2,200 yd). Best Armor on Maus 240 millimetres (9.4 in)

Optics Modern M1 Could engage at 3000m
Maus on a tank sized Target 800m (assuming it could hit)

Maus only hope would be a lucky hit with a HE to scrub off optics and shock effects. It's penetrators probably could NOT pen from any aspect but rear.

Speed M1 would faster and longer ranged. 18kph versus 85kph

>>34642865
>maus, the gigantic lumbering behemoth, is going to ambush a tank with far superior profile, optics, and mobility

>>34642845
>Maus on a tank sized Target 800m (assuming it could hit)
Hitting unmoving tank 2km wasn't really a problem for their 88mm guns.
If the Maus doesn't have a flaved gun mount, I don't know why it would do any worse.
>>34642817
If this is true then Maus could pen some parts of the side if they happen to ambush M1.
Damaging gun should also be possible with luck.

>>34642871
In urban area of course.
You didn't watch GuP movie or what?

>>34642845
>M1 abrams
>85 km/h

Dude, everyone knows those turbine engines are multifuel, but they don't fucking run on crack.

>>34642946

Abrams can go over 100kmh thanks to dat turbine engine.

It shakes the tank apart, but it can do it.

Which is why it has a governor!

>>34642946
It can go that fast.
For a few seconds.

>>34640915
Remember, this one was originally classified as a "light scout/recon tank"

File: 1499810075113.jpg (41KB, 576x463px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 576x463px

>>34643259
>>34643244
And yet it still doesn't have s ducts. Sad!

File: 99120105051_Shadowsword01.jpg (33KB, 600x620px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x620px

>>34640915
I always thought the Shadowsword looked better. Too bad it fires some gay edgy laser shit instead of a proper shell.

>>34643549
I thought that was the one that used edgy soul screaming ammo BS. Or amI thinking of some chaos monstrosity tank?

>>34643559
>soul screaming ammo BS
Haven't heard of that specifically, I mean it turns nearby people who hear it insane if that's what you're talking about.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Volcano_Cannon

>>34642811
>asking for sauce
>on a pic like that
Anon please go spend time in nature. Go for a hike. Go and leave this cursed image behind.

>>34642538
>GDI
>russians

>>34643652
Saying I just want the name and not the scene doesn't save me either does it?

>>34643519
Stealth is optional for this mission

File: 1500866549561.jpg (654KB, 1200x739px) Image search: [Google]

654KB, 1200x739px

>>34643652
>>34642811
>>34640452
here's the uncensored version

>>34644145
hnnggg

>>34642817
>2189mm HEAT
Why can't they just coat the entire tank in that?

>>34636445
>Could a battle-proven top-rate MBT still in service tackle a "Work it harder make it better do it faster makes us stronger" forced late-war design from ol' Hitler boy and his treasure chest of nazi space magic

The fucking Maus wouldn't even turn on before the Abrams was on it's 20th lap around the damn thing, and that's from a starting engagement at 1500m.

>>34637372
>citation needed

>>34642842
tough without seeing the suspension and with the rear deck washed out. m4a4 or m4a2 would be good guesses

>>34640405
the t55 only has 30mm roof armor, enough for a 40mmDP grenade to punch through with plunging fire

File: 02f36918c6b808c0.gif (953KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

953KB, 500x375px

>>34644132

>>34637372
I'm fairly certain a Challenger 2 tanked a RPG-7 for that very reason once.

>>34640359
Uuuu

File: Maus Slide.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>34636445
Only if it could prevent the Maus from making a successful ram.

>>34636463
This is the funniest thing I've read on /k/ in a while.

>>34643666
They were initially made by the Soviets and GDI adopted them after the war.

>>34644382
Because it's abnormally heavy you absolute engineering retard.

>>34640790
Yeah and cut the weight in half in case you forgot to look at that number!

Easily. WW2 armor isn't going to stand up to APFSDS and the M1 can fire further, more accurately and find the Maus first.

>>34636445
As much as I hate admit it the Abrahams wpuld smash it

File: macharius heavy imperial tank.jpg (481KB, 1241x854px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 1241x854px

>>34641399
>>34640951
>>34640915
To be honest the Baneblade is a fuck-ugly mess of too many guns stuffed into too small a vehicle. Best Tank in 40k is macharius Vanquisher, both aesthetically and engineering wise. Look at this beaut.

>>34645740
But it would increase the tank's survivability. Just design a stronger engine, or shave off 15kph from the tank's top speed to compensate.

File: Macharius Vanquisher.png (1MB, 991x599px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 991x599px

>>34645886

>>34645892
No.

>>34642378
Well, you know, they could make sense in that the tank can lift the middle sections off the ground hydraulically or something when it's on roads so it has less ground contact surface area and therefore less drag.

>>34645902
Why not?

File: 1492050653237.png (53KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 256x256px

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a lot of small tanks instead of a few really huge ones?

>>34645915
Because it's abnormally heavy you absolute engineering retard.

>>34642817
>55mm KE
>50mm KE

So the Abrams can be destroyed with any shitty WWII autocannon if you get AP shells under the sideskirts?

>inert
What did they mean by this?


How accurate are Steel Beast's armor values?

>>34637356
Isnt there a rumour though that one Maus fought the russians when the Ostfront reached the testing grounds?

>>34645916
TANKS DO NOT SCALE DOWN WELL
>ATGM-armed HMMVVs, Strykers and shiet
Now use those in the role that a tank fills.

>>34645933
Probably plenty of rumors about it because a lot of kids cream their pants at the thought of the Maus seeing combat. But from there to it having happened is a big fucking jump.

>>34640359
For you

File: mfN7wopa8jaSduwr4G-3wvqYperk-JfYhzuVZI5Rv5U.jpg (111KB, 727x768px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 727x768px

>>34645938
Once you get into mammoth tank size they seem to be pretty easy air targets. Having a massive bunker moving around isn't very useful.

>>34645931
>So the Abrams can be destroyed with any shitty WWII autocannon if you get AP shells under the sideskirts?
Mobility killed, probably. Destroyed? HURR
And good luck getting that shot in the first place.

File: 1499993180070.jpg (1MB, 1704x1360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1704x1360px

>>34645812
the 12.8cm PaK has a max range of 24 kilometers.
the L/55s max range with conventional shells will be between 8 and 12 kilometres.

>>34645985
Max range doesn't mean shit, what it the effective range for point targets?
You could elevate the L/55 to 30 deg and get 30km range but it won't be accurate.

File: D77 Pelican modern hauling capacity.jpg (114KB, 890x592px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 890x592px

>>34645976
Oh, I thought you were applying that argument to modern tanks like the Abrams.
>>34640790
>rapidly deployable and mobile
About that...
>this is the original D77-TC model

>>34645931
>inert
>What did they mean by this?
Shooting at those won't get the shell inside the tank.
>>34645985
With lottery winner luck they would score a hit and maybe even penetrate the weakish top armor if the shells comes from high enough angle.
How much armor modern tanks have at top and bottom?
They are the largest surfaces on tanks, so even a small increase will add plenty of weight.

>>34639483
>UNSCDF

Isn't that a bit redundant seeing as how the UNSC actually IS the military arm of the United Earth Government?

>>34646051
I don't think it would penetrate from any angle just because the shells are so much softer than the armor.
Their best bet would be HE for beating the crew around inside the tank.

>>34646051
>How much armor modern tanks have at top and bottom?
Jack shit. Top attack ammo hasn't been a relevant threat since the very latest stage of the cold war and back then nobody wanted to invest into that particular area anymore since the cold war blew over shortly afterward. All modern western tanks are optimized for COIN raghead blasting and surviving IEDs.

>>34646077
>Top attack ammo hasn't been a relevant threat since the very latest stage of the cold war
What are ATGMs.

>>34646088
You want to say: what are the most expensive ATGMs that there are in the most top of the line arsenals of this world. Practically nobody that the US or its allies are fighting have Javelins or an equivalent. They're all running around with wire-guided or with unguided. Which are mostly spanked aganst the horizontal sides of the tank and not the vertical one.

>>34645979
By destroyed I mean
>engine is fucked
>driver is fucked
>turret crew's feet are probably fucked resulting in them bleeding to death
>AP shells might bounce around inside doing more damage

Doing that with the side skirts there would be pretty difficult, the cannon would need to ambush the tank from a ditch on the side of a road or something.

How tough are the little hinges holding the skirts on?
If those broke and the skirt fell off the vehicle would be a lot more vulnerable.

Maybe an well aimed RPG followed by an autocannon could do it?

>>34646051
So a lot of the bulk on the front of the Abram's turret is just empty space like on the Leopard 2? That vertical bit is the actual armor?
I thought it had sloped armor on the front.

>>34646098
>Javelins or an equivalent
Nigga TOWs are flyover top-attack.

>>34646116
>BGM-71F TOW-2B: introduced 1993
And? Who has those?

>>34646111
>So a lot of the bulk on the front of the Abram's turret is just empty space like on the Leopard 2? That vertical bit is the actual armor?
>I thought it had sloped armor on the front.
not empty space, but NERA

>>34646131
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_attack

File: 1494043423514.gif (3MB, 438x383px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 438x383px

>>34642526

>>34646153
Look at that fucking list. Literally nobody but our allies! No wonder US tanks don't have top armor.

>>34636799
>air support
I wonder what americans would do without air support. Will they do anything without air support?

>>34637076
Because the Führer had a saying in it.
Look up the Breitspurbahn to get an idea.

File: 1499756371843.jpg (144KB, 504x765px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 504x765px

>>34646018
maximum effective (aimable) range was considered to be 3-4km with max penetration at 90° expected to be around 160mm of RHA at 2500 meters and round 80-100mm RHA at 3000 meters.

File: 1496683859284.jpg (693KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

693KB, 1500x1000px

>>34646252
>>34646018
sorry
*around 80-100mm RHA at 3000 meters and 50-70mm at 3500 meters.

>>34646305
is that clint eastwood?

>>34640721
>M820 almost thirty fucking feet tall

>>34646447
think you misread

>>34636463
that combination of words doesn't make sense

B8 thread. I'll bite.
You guys do realise that the armor on the M1A2's front is like 30-40mm thick, right? Sure, the armor composition makes it much stronger, but it is made up from different layers, and those layers would be damaged and disconnected from eachother by enemy fire. Sure, it wont penetrate from the front, but it sure as hell will fuck up the armor matrix. Pretty sure one frontal hit will result in a mission kill, the bursting charge in the shell will fuck up the armor and the optics.

>>34637372
Ummm, how thick is the thickest part, like 200mm? The most basic RPG-7 Warhead, the PG-7V, can pen 260+mm's of armor, more than likely enough to pen the thing.
I might have fallen for b8.

>>34647377
Fucking retarded idiot

>>34647439
Why? I did not mean 30-40mm as ALL THE FUCKING ARMOR, just as a piece of the armor matrix. It is there to trigger HEAT shells, the deform and break up APFSDS's, and to defend vs HESH. You know, layers.

File: 1430514086526.jpg (43KB, 641x491px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 641x491px

>Armour that stops 125mm rounds moving 1800m/s can be defeated by 128mm rounds moving at 950m/s
>Tank armour has a health-bar that can be depleted by spamming enough 5.56 like in command and conquer
>the Maus could win if X and Y, and the [conditions] were A,B, C, D and E and the Abrams gunner was in a coma

File: 1484953878835.jpg (11KB, 236x350px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 236x350px

>>34636463
Oh yeah? My dad works at Nintendo.

>>34647644
>>Tank armour has a health-bar that can be depleted by spamming enough 5.56 like in command and conquer
Well eventually the Abrams would be buried under a mountain of 5.56 bullets or they would have worn the armor to nothing atom by atom.

>>34645938
>not having a fleet of a thousand Weasel AWC minitonks
armored combat has never been cuter

>>34636463
Is there an easier board to b8 than /k/? Genuine question.

File: 1500358956378.png (249KB, 426x454px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 426x454px

>>34646024
>take pelican, a vtol with fucking SSTO capable magic engines
>armour it as much as a tank
>give it a big fucking railgun
>win all ground battles ever

I don't even like the Abrams but it would win hands down. Why? The Maus was shit it fucking broke down on the fucking testing range even the time hitler was there to observe it, which he was still happy about it because he had a fetish for big stupid tanks.

File: ntisp.jpg (61KB, 500x329px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 500x329px

>>34636463

File: dafuck.jpg (2KB, 114x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 114x125px

>>34642842

Rare.

That's a Ram tank, it's a Canadian version of the Sherman ( can't remember which flavour of the week sherman, but a sherman nontheless). They made like a few hundred before MLW said fuck it they started using regular US tanks.

>>34649643
>That's a Ram tank, it's a Canadian version of the Sherman ( can't remember which flavour of the week sherman, but a sherman nontheless).
none of this is correct, for what it's worth

File: G77S Pelican Gunship.jpg (1MB, 1120x798px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1120x798px

>>34649350
Three replies required for this.
One.
(Anti-infantry/light vehicle with AT missiles)

File: G79H composition image - complete.jpg (838KB, 2564x2040px) Image search: [Google]

838KB, 2564x2040px

>>34649350
>>34649673
Two.
(Armament layout in image, post-war D79 airframe)
And yes it was a bitch to get an underside image of the damn airframe, especially without theater mode in H4 campaign.

File: hats.jpg (23KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x400px

>>34649655

Is it a Grizzley? It's got the weird bumps in front of the hatches.

>>34649795
no. a grizzly is essentially an m4a1, which has the cast hull. the ram was based on the m3 lee. the tank in the picture is probably either an m4a2 or m4a4, but it's tough to tell with the suspension buried and the rear deck washed out in the image

>>34636445

>Maus

220 mm of literal rolled homogenous steel front turret armor.

>M1A1 120 mm rheinmettal gun

APFSDS round is capable of penetrating 540 mm of RHS at 2000 meters.

Yes, the Maus would be destroyed by the M1A1 easily.

File: G81 (port, angled, 1).png (2MB, 1096x882px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1096x882px

>>34649350
>>34649673
>>34649745
Three.
Meet the Pelican's bigger brother, the D81 Condor.
>literally two Pelican airframes combined together
There's your
>give it a big fucking railgun

That being said:
>armour it as much as a tank
Armor would have unfortunate effects on mobility. A better choice would be to give it shielding capabilities - shielding regenerates, armor doesn't.
Even then, large anti-ship weaponry like the Covie Mantis and the UNSC's missile batteries and Onagers would welp it... assuming the gunship strayed within their range, that is.

>>34649673
>>34649745
>>34649815
Very nice.

>>34649811
What if the Maus got the first shot in?

File: facepalm.jpg (23KB, 660x330px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 660x330px

>>34649842

An angry M1.

>>34636445

Is that to scale?

I've never really had a good picture of how big the Maus was supposed to be.

>>34649885
no

>>34649857
Even up the rear?

>>34649983
The best chance for a lone Maus realistically is to hope it can score a mobility kill against the tracks. Load as big of a HE round as you can and channel your inner little girl to hit the first shot.

Then run away. Really slowly. Maybe wait for artillery at that point.

I really do wonder what the Maus could do with a modern engine (or two) and better materials though. Boxy mobile pillbox supreme with enough horsepower to perform tank drifting.

>>34650031
>The best chance for a lone Maus realistically is to hope it can score a mobility kill against the tracks. Load as big of a HE round as you can and channel your inner little girl to hit the first shot.
>Then run away. Really slowly. Maybe wait for artillery at that point.
That doesn't neutralize the now pissed-off Abrams' cannon though...

>>34650241
If it can get away behind a hill and disengage then it can be safe unless the Abrams has some cannon launched missiles in stock.

>>34650250
>unless the Abrams has some cannon launched missiles in stock

File: 1482848077058.jpg (190KB, 800x495px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 800x495px

>>34645916
I've always wanted to see light tanks return to the battlefield.

These days, with the capability of modern autoloaders, engines, and improved suspension/track designs, you could easily have some kind of small 2-3 man tank with a 110-120mm smoothbore cannon that can hit somewhere above 75 km/h offroad, maybe 90 on road.

Have a few of them working in packs, communicating with drones and air support to locate targets before they get in range, then use your superior speed and tiny size to ambush the enemy without them being able to hit you.

>>34651738
That's exactly what the Stryker MGS is supposed to be lad, just wheeled instead of tracked.

File: 1482847647905.jpg (79KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 600x400px

>>34651753
>wheeled instead of tracked
Sounds gay.

What's the lightest tank you could possible mount a 105 smoothbore on, anyway? I imagine too little weight and firing it could flip the tank over.

>>34651760
Basically about the weight of the MGS, 16 tons or so. That thing does "almost flip over" every time it fires, so I imagine that a 20+ ton machine will be more ideal for a modern light tank. Nothing wrong with aiming for medium tanks either.

Depending on the target's level of technology they could also get away with a smaller gun.

File: 070809_IS-7_vs_E-100.jpg (82KB, 750x736px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 750x736px

>>34649885
hugeeg

>>34651760

>lightest

About 20 tonnes.

Less than that seems to go for the 90mm gun as with the frogs and S.African designs.

It's one of the reasons that missiles are so effective since you can launch them from the back of pretty much anything and be fine. Not to mention the other advantages.

If you HAD to have a light tank then I'd just go with a modernised Cadillac Stingray thats not made of fucking aluminium with all the modern comforts like ERA.

Or just use a Bradley for the same role since they are better protected.

File: 1365750770197.png (242KB, 569x429px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 569x429px

trouble is they made three of them
the first being more like a moveable wooden mock up
the second saw a few trails
and the third was a total dead end and never saw testing

File: 1485491915816.png (136KB, 620x278px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 620x278px

>>34649885
>>34636445
Just noticed, that's definitely not a Maus in OP's picture, what the hell is it?

>>34651779
Looks like the MGS is quite tall though, you'd think with the gun mounted low and a fairly flat hull it wouldn't have as much of a problem, especially if you fitted a muzzle brake.

>>34651809
Does anyone make a 90mm smoothbore?

>>34648515
/b/, especially with summerfags and ifunnyfags

>>34649842

>With the heavy charge, and using the PzGr.43 projectile, the Pak 44 was capable of penetrating 230 millimetres (9.1 in) of 30 degree sloped armour at 1000 metres, 200 millimetres (7.9 in) at 2,000 metres (2,200 yd),and 173 millimetres (6.8 in) at 3,000 metres (3,300 yd) range.[1

That's of course in RHS, the only thing it could be going up against in WW2.

>M1A1: Hull & turret –
600 mm vs APFSDS,
700 mm vs HEAT[11]

That is against superior discarding sabot rounds and advanced HEAT designs.

The projectile of the Maus would literally do nothing to the composite armor of the M1A1.

This is assuming that the crew of the M1A1 were literally blind and drunk. The M1A1 has optics of such a superior design that it would pop a Maus before the crew of the Maus ever knew the M1A1 was there.

Look at the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Those Soviet designed tanks the Iraqis were usimg had vastly superior optics to what the Maus could have fielded in 1945 and those were being popped by the Abrams before the Iraqi tank crews even were aware the Abrams were there.

File: 057.gif (2MB, 260x146px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 260x146px

>>34636463
Commin into ths thread like

>>34640452
>Being a kike

File: IMG_1207.jpg (703KB, 1600x905px) Image search: [Google]

703KB, 1600x905px

>>34636464

>>34651753
Only it is larger than the Abrams dimentionally and less mobile defeating the point entierly. Of course, it has better road mobility, so there's that.

File: vt5.jpg (209KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 600x400px

>>34651738
hello yes

File: 1365748180816.jpg (33KB, 500x370px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x370px

>>34642490
>>34642460
or make something like the Churchill Bridge Layer

>>34651903
What's the red arrow supposed to be pointing at?

>>34641800
Your scenario is bullshit because the Abrams sees the Maus first, shoots first, then wins.

File: i went slow once and it was awful.png (98KB, 233x280px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 233x280px

>>34652287
>Abrams sees Maus first
>because it moves so fucking slow they think it's a static display piece
>crew reports back to command that the Russians have lost an invaluable museum artefact to the ISIS hordes
>command orders them to capture it for retrieval and display in their own museums
>battalion captain has SUCH a boner about the mad cred he'll get from higher ups when this thing is retrieved
>Abrams crew floors it to get at the Maus before anyone else, they have mostly the same thoughts
>Maus crew sees this and thinks the Abrams crew has gone completely crazy
>slow-motion their waybehind a building
>Abrams crew shows up
>"what the fuck boys, where did this thing go?"
>Maus is already snailmoding beyond the horizon

>>34651786
russian tanks are always small, though, and your picture also doesn't show the maus

>>34652185
the maus