What would happen if an M1 Abrams got hit by pic related?
>122mm self-propelled howitzer
what if
It would get fucked up. Really fucking bad
>>28941057
The Abrams or the Gvozdika? Just asking what the pure damage would be to the M1
>>28940905
A mission kill at the very least.
>>28940905
Pretty badly fucked up. Possibly rip the turret off its ring.
>>28941057
>>28941137
>>28941188
Abrams have been known to survive multiple 152mm shells detonating directly under them.
122mm aint shit
>>28941208
Big difference from getting slammed on by a supersonic explosive and having some shit explode 3 feet under you.
Aren't there like a hundred videos of Abrams being hit by daisy-chained 122mm and 152mm artillery shells?
>>28941208
When and under what circumstances?
A direct 152 mm hit will fuck everything up, big time.
>>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.
>>28941271
No.
And the people that claim "lol tank just rolled on not even a scratch" are retarded.
>>28941243
Artillery shells aren't designed to direct their blast in the direction they're travelling in though
>>28941271
Yeah, one time a 122 mm IED sent the turret flying 50 yards into the air.
Try to extrapolate something from this 105mm vs steel target in direct fire
>>28941271
ameriboos try to hide this, nearly 70% of all abrams that were sent into Iraq were destroyed.
>>28941243
The velocity of the shell adds very little to the energy imparted to the tank.
There is a very good reason HE shells have been irrelevant in the anti-tank role since the end of WWII
>>28941309
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.
>>28941375
70%? Really?
>>28940905
Where?
The Abrams is capable of surviving multiple hits from other Abrams' across most angles. Two extra millimeters of gun, especially at a lower velocity aren't going to do much.
>>28941188
>>28941315
>>28941375
>>28941458
It's the whole shitload of explosives that are the problem.
>>28941375
>70%
you sound like my retarded uncle who pulled out of his ass the info that 70% of the world economy is geared towards war.
Then again he believes that Osama Bin Laden doesn't exist and that the US and Russia are in on the Syrian war and their leaders are part of the Illuminati
>>28940905
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122_mm_howitzer_2A18_%28D-30%29
Are there any guided HEAT rounds for the 2A18?
No? Then the chances of a direct hit by anything meaningful are pretty slim. It's either:
Proximity blast from HE, which does nothing, or
Direct hit from laser-guided HE, which does nothing, or
Direct hit from direct-fire HEAT, which does whatever 122mm HEAT dooes to Abrams front or side armor, or
For some retarded reason, the Gvodz gunner fires a HEAT round blindly at an indirect target and gets lucky.
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
>>28941474
Dank pic thanks for it man
>>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.
>>28941563
>Had a Warrior IFV survive being hit broadside with a 120mm HESH round fired by a Challenger 1 in the Gulf War
>>28941208
There is a huge difference between an IED and a shell coming in at y'
>>28941579
mfw I imagine these being applied in a ifv role
>>28941582
This only proves how shit HESH is.
>>28941523
Your uncle sounds like my brother...god damn I hate my brother.
>>28940905
It would be very noisy and violent and disorienting.
>>28941579
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.
>>28941594
No there isn't.
The largest HE-FRAG available for the 2S1 has 18,680,000 joules worth of TNT.
The kinetic energy of the shell at point blank range is only 5,179,968 joules.
So basically you're full of shit.
>>28941498
It really isn't.
There's a reason why even the bongs, who are pretty much the only folk who still bother with using HE against armor are using HESH not steel case shells.
The current Russian main tank gun is a 125, they still rely on pen, not brute undirected explosive force, for hunting tanks.
An Abrams turret is heavier than an M4 Sherman. You aren't going to move it enough to knock the tank out with the slightly more than 4 kilos of filler explosive in the 3OF56 shells this gun can throw.
>>28940905
Russian 122mm HEAT
>>28941582
Hesh is shit, m8, unless the armor is homogenous steel of low ductility.
There's a reason why everyone makes fun of the Bongs for using HESH as an excuse to keep a rifled tank gun.
>>28941655
Your mom must be so proud. If you can't understand why a projectile coming out of a barrel, and an IED have different penetration properties you should get yourself checked.
>>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
>>28941582
The Challenger (from RSDG) hit the Warrior (from 1 STAFFORDS) on the Chobham up-armour blocks that are mounted on the outside of the hull.
The effect of HESH wouldn't really transfer to the vehicle hull because the blocks are spaced from the hull and HESH is not good against composite armour in general.
I did have a picture of the warrior somewhere but can't find it.
>>28941208
The first known catastrophic kill of an Abrams was an IED made out of 152mm artillery shells. It blew the turret out of the tank.
>>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"
>>28941057
>HE is not AT guiz.
But really, fuck videogames.
>>28941563
>>28941582
This is one of those Desert Storm myths like an Abrams taking shots in the side from other Abrams and not being penetrated.
>>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.
>>28941918
learn to read a whole post before becoming upset.
>>28941375
Even if, although it isn't, EVEN IF it was 70%....
> Implying we sell the sand niggers the same Abrams we use
You are full retard or gay bait. In which case, I'm gay and you're still retarded.
>>28941701
Kill yourself.
>>28941701
Its HE frag, it isn't penetrating armor regardless of how fast its going.
>>28941665
>There's a reason why even the bongs, who are pretty much the only folk who still bother with using HE against armor are using HESH not steel case shells.
Only in the last decade have western armies developed HE-FRAG rounds for NATO 120mm guns.
Bongs use APFSDS against heavy armor and HESH against everything else, the only reason they still use HESH is it would cost too much to rebuild their tanks for unitary 120mm ammunition storage.
America specifically bought new batches of 105mm HEP for Stryker MGS because it is a cheap, do almost everything, round.
This thread is full of Blacktail tier knowledge.
>>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.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1991/jul/24/friendly-fire-incidents
>>28941989
>>28942006
source: over 9000 hours in video games
>>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.
>>28942041
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.
>>28941948
He was implying there was friendly fire *all over* the place.
>>28942029
Any citation with details about the actual damage the Warrior took?
>>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)
>>28942075
>you have to penetrate the armor in order to achieve a kill
source: Call of Battlefield
>>28942111
>you don't have to penetrate the armor in order to achieve a kill
source: World of Tanks
>>28942111
So you admit to knowing fucking nothing about anything, waste of trips.
Kill yourself.
>>28942106
>I walked out on him after he claimed that the US assassinated Allende (when he clearly committed suicide)
The US effectively assassinated him by supporting the coup. You both sound like retards.
>>28942132
>>28942137
Not him, but you're embarrassing.
>>28942101
Afraid not.
There was a photo of the struck vehicle somewhere on the internet in the past (possible arrse) but I cannot find it now.
>>28942156
>you're
>two or more different people
>implying 122mm HE frag is going to knock out any tank built after 1960
>>28942132
>World of Tanks
just googled this, looks actually not that bad.
>>28942137
>boohoo the mean man on the internet made my feelings hurt ;_;
>>28942132
>>28942137
>So you admit to knowing fucking nothing about anything
I am not even the anon you are arguing with, but the irony is deafening.
>>28942146
no I mean they sent an assassin to kill him with the AK to make it look like he had given up
Its obvious that they created a scenario by which he killed himself (thus killing him indirectly), but he claims that they had a mole who killed him during the Siege of La Moneda
Big difference between assassinated and straight up killed due to a sequence of events
>>28942175
>just googled this, looks actually not that bad.
>is responsible for le HE kills tanks without penetrating meme
>>28942218
>is responsible for le HE kills tanks without penetrating meme
You might want to study actual combat records.
The recent conflict in Ukraine has plenty of pictures, even you should be able to do research.
>>28942218
>meme
aren't you a little young to be awake at this hour?
>>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.
>>28942243
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.
>>28942243
IF I DONT GET THE KILL MESSAGE ON MY SCREEN IT DOESNT COUNT >:O
>>28942258
wow you must clearly be in the armed forces, let alone owning anything that isn't a plastic toy for kids.
are you sure you didn't mean to go to >>>/cgl/ instead?
>>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.
>>28942295
>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.
In the hopes of disabling them because they have NOTHING BETTER.
Shooting HE at a tank is an act of pure idiocy or desperation.
>>28942316
>In the hopes of disabling them because they have NOTHING BETTER.
Correct.
What do you want them to do, wave a magic wand and get a different weapon?
>>28942326
So you agree. How fucking autistic are you?
Shooting HE at tanks is stupidly ineffective. 122mm HE wouldn't do jack shit other than put a dent in the engine deck.
>>28942316
>Shooting HE at a tank is an act of pure idiocy or desperation.
hello, we're talking about REAL LIFE here, not videogames. you can't pop a powerup or reload your quicksave in real life, and when you die you are really actually dead.
do you think that soldiers in war can just go "oh no I'm going to die, timeout, I didn't bring the proper gear for this, gg no re" ?
>>28942236
>What is Spalling.
>>28942335
>So you agree. How fucking autistic are you?
I'm autistic because I agree with you?
>>28942258
>>28942258
Why the fuck are you such an idiot? We'll go through this in order.
>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.
>>28942295
>WWII
>sub-RHA steel tanks without spall liners
>relevant
>>28942240
It is a meme you dip. HE has never been the munition of choice against tanks because it is the least effective of all at penetrating armor.
>>28942345
Something that doesn't happen to modern armor.
>>28942335
>>28942316
>>28942258
you are a few hours late for day/k/are noguns shitposting about things they only saw in games and movies, come back tomorrow.
>>28942357
>Ukrainians
>Not idiots
????
>>28941707
He's right though. Seems like you don't understand his positions as well as you think you do.
>>28942361
>>WWII
>>sub-RHA steel tanks without spall liners
>>relevant
Explain this to me.
>>28942370
Smarter than you, in any case.
>>28942361
your underage armchair generaling sure showed me!
>>28942374
right about what though?
granted I got real salty when he said that, but he was just as salty in putting down my points for no reason
>>28942391
Dumb enough to get invaded by russian special forces and lose to a bunch of rebels.
>>28942416
>HAHA they lost to a bunch of rebels back by a nuclear superpower hundred times stronger!
>I would hold out for EVER against those cheeky russkies!
what's with the underage in this thread?
>>28942378
WWII era tanks(especially German and Russian) could be destroyed by comically large HE shells because they were made of relatively thin and brittle steel which would shatter when hit.
The crew could also be injured or killed by spalling from near penetrations from AP and smaller HE shells.
None of this applies to modern tanks because they have much thicker and less brittle armor and spall liners around everything important.
Can we get back on topic to OPs question? It seems like this thread just devolved into shit talking. I thought we were better than this /k/
>>28942442
I'm sorry but none of that has anything to do with what I posted.
>>28942457
>What would happen if an M1 Abrams got hit by pic related?
probably nothing
possibly some minor damage to optics
>>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.
>>28942461
>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.
>accounts of armor crews from WW2
>WW2
>>28942480
>If they had proper AT munitions, they would not bother using artillery for firing on tanks
>If they had proper AT munitions
>If
do you sense the reason why you are being laughed at yet?
>>28942489
exactly
>>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.
>>28942505
To say it is effective is BS. Ukraine is a low-intensity conflict with lots of skirmishing. If ivan wanted to kill you with his tanks, 122mm he would not stop him from doing so.
>>28942525
>it WORKS
Its horribly inefficient from a logistics standpoint. You are spending many times the volume and mass required to disable a tank on doing so.
>>28942551
THEY'RE FIRING AT THEM OVER FUCKING OPEN SIGHTS. THEY'RE USING THEM AS DIRECT FIRE ANTI-TANK GUNS. IS THIS A DIFFICULT CONCEPT TO UNDERSTAND?
>>28942571
Calm down McSpergison, it's okay to be wrong.
>>28942571
Except it's not an anti-tank gun by definition since it does not penetrate armor, you fucking moron. It's a fucking howitzer.
>>28942546
>To say it is effective is BS
nobody said this.
but please go ahead keep posting, it is funny.
>>28942571
They're using several times more HE shells to disable a tank than they would ATGMs or proper KEP shells fired from another tank.
This is bad for logistics.
OP here
This post went to shit relatively quickly. Bye everyone, you can stop shitposting now
>>28942612
Goal post shifting. Some fag has been saying it's effective for like 15 posts. Just leave.
>>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.
>>28942643
>Some fag has been saying it's effective for like 15 posts.
if only we could scroll up and test that claim!
>>28942594
It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to be a fucking idiot who won't learn a thing.
>>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.
>>28940905
How can you work this without knowing how fast the 2S1 SPG was driving? What angle did it hit 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.
t. air support anon.
time to post this
>>28942707
lol i bet u dont even drive tanks in video games.
i know for a FACT that the ambrahams is an indestructable weapon of god!
>>28942707
Sabot rounds? On a self-propelled howitzer? The fuck?
>>28942707
>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
>>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.
>>28941552
youre autistic and you should learn to read
OP said:
IF it HIT
not
Could it HIT
>>28942824
And its been answered, probably nothing.
>>28942838
reading comprehension is an important skill for life
>>28942824
And its been answered, probably something.
>>28942735
You can't aim i get it.
jezz
>Sabot rounds? On a self-propelled howitzer? The fuck?
you can, its just not pratical and ther are only a hanfull and its only ever used in self defense
some can even direct fire.
Artillery has always has been able to indirect fire and direct fire
there always more than 3 shells a artilletry unit can deploy
only a handful of artillery can be used in direct fire mode with out manual over ride.
>like all American equipment can't use all it fuctions because waahhhh too much damage
to muh civs
this isn't video games chief.
>>28942780
wow way to prove me wrong with nothing. lel
>>28943194
who are you even replying to.
damn drunk australians.
>>28941791
Are you talking about that ISIS propaganda video where they stuffed an abandoned tank full of explosives and blew its turret off?
That's the only confirmed instance where an Abrams popped its top.
>>28943230
#rekt.
Just admit it, tank fags you drive nothing more than coffins on tracks
>>28943296
go to bed Kangaroo Jack, I was bashing the "tanks are godmode" shitters all thread long.
>>28943194
Howitzers may have HEAT rounds but no APDS. Direct firing HEAT on the front armor won't do shit against most modern MBTs.
I don't think it would remain functional.
Front HE impact, gun likely ruined, top risk of damage due to thin armor, sides track destroyed, rear engine and APU destroyed, risk of fire.
Ukraine tanks seemed to fair very poorly against artillery, while they often weren't destroyed they usually had to abandon them due to damage.
