what happens when a M109 hits a modern tank in direct fire with a normal HE round? During WWII many tanks were knocked out by normal artillery pieces, are modern tanks completely immune to it?
tank is fucked by 155mm round unless you weren't dumb enough to mount it with reactive armor or aps
>>29911159
I remember a pic of a t something series tank from the ikraine conflict that got hut with a 203 HE shell and it busted the hull apart at the weld where the sprocket connects to the hull
>>29911159
that a 155 I imagine whatever is on the reeving bend will have a bad day an mbt might survive considering it built to take hits form from HESH and apfs, but still have to be a modern mbt, anything else will probably be full kia
It will destroy optics, treads and all external equpment, but atleast frontal armor is thick enough to survive the hit
>>29911183
> I don't know what composites and spaced armour in armour packages is
>>29911159
It is killed.
A direct hit will destroy it.
A close one will destroy exterior equipment and other important parts like tracks and road wheels.
>>29911159
>what happens when a M109 hits a modern tank in direct fire with a normal HE round?
Weapon effects against modern MBTs are secret information.
>>29911159
they have been using 122s in ukraine against MBTs, so a fair guess would be that a Direct hit would make it a M-kill atleast
I wonder much energy an 155mm round has compare to an APFSDS. I'm gonna guess a direct hit from a 155mm round will fuck shit up more than an APFSDS given the massive energy an artillery round needs to travel great distances.
>>29911159
It would be extremely painful
>>29911716
for (you)
>>29911159
It may rip off optics and antennae out of the tank.
If heat near tracks it will probably damage them and maybe even roadwheels.
of course lucky shots where it can hit half-opened hatch are allowed but let's just say we won't count them because of obvious reasons
I think that at this point only Russians bother with anything bigger than 155mm so... yeah
>>29911791
>heat
hit*
>>29911159
i have a big chunk of shrapnel from a M48 that landed beside me while doing direct fire from about 2000 meters. this was with a M198.
>>29911159
A direct hit will kill it. A close hit will fuck it up but probably not put it out of action. Anything more than 30m to 50m away won't do shit.
But good luck getting a direct hit, because GPS/INS rounds are only accurate to within ~10m or a stationary point, and the moment the first shell lands, every tank is buttoning up and rolling out at 40mph.
Hence DPICM (with those 40-50mm dia HEAT warheads) and then later the various self-targeting EFP submunitions like BONUS.
>>29911858
it was sizzling laying in the snow after a direct hit when i first noticed it.
This happens
>>29911940
>vata shit
>breaks from the lightest breeze
I could probably destroy it with my fart after eating some spicy food.
>>29911159
Fuck it up. There's a reason the next 'upgrade' is either the 120mm ETC gun or a 155mm gun on a tank.
Problems are that:
1.) ETC is still infancy stage tech. It gives AMAZING returns but it's like throwing out the baby with the bath water when current 120mm works well enough.
2.) While the 155mm gun would fucking obliterate ANY modern tank, regardless of it using HE or HEAT, it's also heavy and bulky as fuck. You'd probably halve your own ammo capacity just thinking about installing the gun, let alone how you'd hold the ammo. Though you would be able to 2 piece the ammo like the Brits do and thus not rely on blowout panels for ammo protection.
3.) China and Russia both had test bed models for this and decided to go back to 125mm and ATGMs. There's obviously some massive set backs to 155mm being used as AT in the current climate.
>>29911940
>>29911192
Thanks
>>29911988
>>29911993
Increasing gun calibre when you can improve ammunitions or guns with currently-used calibre is a waste of money.
Especially when we're talking about calibres like 155mm which are ENORMOUSLY huge for tank standards(120 is a lot already) and will inevitably require auto-loader.
While 155mm HE, HEAT and variations(HE-FRAG, HESH etc.) sound like the best thing since sliced bread(imagine spalling from 155mm HESH round) there will be problems with rate of fire, logistics, and the ammunition itself being complete overkill for less modern tanks and soft target. Now the question is whether you have to deal with enemy that's numerous enough to validate that choice of gun. I think the US has never used M48's with 105mm guns(even though they've had ones) in Vietnam because there just wasn't any point in using them.
>>29911192
>>29912026
If it was 203mm from Pion that tank would have been in orbit. The difference between 155mm and 203mm guns is the shell weight. 203mm guns have about twice the shell weight and that means more oomph. So the gun used to knockout that tank would have been either 122mm or 152mm gun.
Hezbollah did an IED from unexploded israeli 155 shells . It hit a merk (don't know which variant), sent it flying and kill a crew inside (the others have suffered some internal organ bleeding as well)
The tank, while suffered both mobility and firepower kill, is still repairable (and they did repaired afaik) and would go back in action
>>29912099
all I remember is it got hit by some patriotic war era relic towed gun hence HE instead of HEAT or solid shot
Well a combat load in a M109A6 is going to be mostly HE rounds and PD fuzes.
Bullshitting with the guys in the Ft. Benning shops on Harmony Church, we theorized that a copperhead round could kill a Bradley from any angle, or an Abrams from anything but a direct frontal hit. Then again a copperhead isn't going to hit direct front normally.
As for a standard HE/PD combo, a rear hit will net a mobility kill, a top hit will probably kill everyone inside, side hits will disable everything and seriously rattle the crew to the point of serious injury/death, and a frontal hit will destroy everything that isn't the hull but rattle the crew somewhat less.
This is just the musings of myself and a couple of the BAE contractors with a wealth of knowledge on the respective vehicles.
Also of note, a .50 will make swiss cheese of everything on a Paladin except the driver's compartment (on the A6).
>>29911932
Artilleryfag here, I believe it. We did direct fire on a old Patton or T55 or something on Ft. Benning at about 2800m once. A big chunk of it flew back over us and landed behind us on the gun line. Was pretty sweet, whatever the tank used to be was no longer much of anything.
>>29912089
Well they didn't have the upgunned M48s during Vietnam but other than that you're mostly correct seeing as how they just left the M60s in Germany.
>>29911209
Plus the spall liner will usually keep the crew alive.
>>29911988
>122mm HE
>light breeze
Eh you know examples of other tanks surviving direct hits from artillery?
>>29912089
>increasing gun caliber
That means making the barrel longer, not making the barrel diameter bigger. A 155mm/52 cal (G-5, PzH-2000,K9) can hit a target up to 30% farther than 155mm/39 cal howitzer(M777,M198) by using standard HE munition
>>29912733
This, but a lot of people don't realize "caliber" in this instance means barrel length so be a bit forgiving in that regard.
Direct fire or plunging? 'Cause I assume taking one on the roof is going to be a lot worse.
>>29912329
If your artillery is taking machine fun fire, something has gone horribly wrong
>>29912841
3rd ID used to use the fucking M992 for gate guard shenanigans. Plenty had holes punched into them and they have basically the same armament. Some Paladins were also hit by RPG and small arms fire on some of the hotter convoy routes in Iraq. I think one was even fucked by an IED but I don't recall specifically.
But yes, generally speaking, you aren't going to meet much in the way of HMG fire in a loladin.
>>29912810
this, OFC hitting on top would be effective, but what about straight on?
>>29911320
>I wonder much energy an 155mm round has compare to an APFSDS. I'm gonna guess a direct hit from a 155mm round will fuck shit up more than an APFSDS given the massive energy an artillery round needs to travel great distances.
Not only the kinetic energy but if you are using, say, 155mm rounds, there is a shitload of explosives right on/inside the roof of the tank - for example the basic M107 projectile for US artillery:
Explosive content:
- Composition B: 6.985 kg plus 0.136 kg TNT supplemental charge.
- TNT: 6.62 kg plus 0.136 kg TNT supplemental charge.
...and that means almost 14 kg of explosives on the tank roof which will simply fuck metal plates up.
