Could a MBT sink a modern aircraft carrier? Or is the superstructure too thick/tough for the round to penetrate?
Ignore the fact that a mbt would never get within firing range or that it would get aniliated by aircraft before the carrier drifted that close to shore.
>>30031231
>Could a MBT sink a modern aircraft carrier?
If it had unlimited ammunition and unlimited time, yes.
>>30031238
Develop your hypothesis
>>30031231
Depends on how fast the MBT is moving when it hits the carrier.
>>30031299
>ywn see a tank dropped from outer space and smash into a carrier at orbital speed
Born too soon
>>30031231
Tank shell'd penetrate just fine.
And make a small hole with no noticeable effect whatsoever. Aircraft carriers are BIG
>>30031348
What if the shell hit the reactor power plant?
>>30031396
jack shit.
it's the most armored part of a modern carrier.
also they're generally centrally located so the shell would have to plow through a bunch of random shit before it even reached.
but now i want to know what sort of damage an air dropped tank will do.
hi allhau akbar
>>30031493
>enemy airplane manages to fly low and slow enough to airdrop a couple tanks and the deck of an aircraft carrier
>crew inside
>they immediately get to work and unleash hell and havoc on a crazy suicide mission
I'd watch/play/read that
>>30031260
The effective armor in modern MBTs exceeds that of even the most heavily-armored battleships. Modern MBTs are designed to kill other MBTs. Thus, we are certain that penetration is not a problem. However, MBTs are much smaller than warships, so the projectiles used to fight them just basically poke holes through them. Just poking holes in a carrier isn't going to do very much immediately, hence the qualifier "given unlimited ammunition and time". Eventually, if you shoot enough sabot rounds into it, you're going to either hit something critical enough or just poke enough holes that the ship is going to be lost.
If a tank plt has the chance to target a carrier? would it be best to shoot at where the carrier meets the waterline? Would this cause the carrier to sink?
Or should the tanks target the aircraft and start fires everywhere?
remember tank plt have 4 tanks X 40 rounds of ammo each = 160 tank rounds assume HEAT.
>>30031518
>>30031614
>>30031518
>it's a Habakkuk
What if you shot the anchor and then the boat will get ripped in half by the chain if you're moving
>>30031518
Wouldn't even necessarily be suicide. They could simply take the bridge hostage with the main gun and threaten to fire if they get painted by laser or radar.
I don't know what the weight of a tank would do to the ship, but if you just tell them to either leave the ship dead in the water or move towards a friendly fleet then you'd have taken the ship out of action.
Not getting shot down while approaching a a carrier group with an aircraft capable of carrying a tank is probably the hardest part after making 100% sure that the tank lands in the right place.
>>30031231
only way to sink ship in a tank is by shooting unlimited ammo into the sea to rise the sea level enough to sink the ship
>>30031660
>not firing a torpedo out of the barrel
why not shoot at where the carrier hull meets the water line? a tank plt has like 160 of ammo. surely 160 holes from HEAT rounds would sink a carrier?
>>30031332
>at orbital speed
>>30031578
gee what about the giant stores of aviation fuel and munitions ?????
Depends how much koolaid the crew can take.
![NLE4JmTcawY[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/9a0uRjK.jpg "NLE4JmTcawY[1].jpg")
>>30031231
No, but BRDM can.
>aircraft carrier launches any of it's aircraft
>tanks dead before even firing a 3rd shot.
a hundred tanks, maybe. otherwise this is stupid.
>>30031680
Those things are stored towards the centre of ships, below the water line. You're not going to penetrate one with a tank shell, and even if you did, modern powder and fuels are fairly stable. You'd have to start a fire to make them really go BOOM. Tank shells just aren't made to do that kind of thing. It might make some small holes in the hull, but it's doubtful that even that would cause small paper fires in cabins or anything.
>>30034000
did you even read the OP
>Ignore the fact that a mbt would never get within firing range or that it would get aniliated by aircraft before the carrier drifted that close to shore.
>>30031396
even if you completely mashed it, it would probably just not work and be somewhat radioactive in only the room it's housed
nuclear reactors are not nuclear bombs
>>30034055
>ignore the fact that an aircraft carrier can't do what an aircraft carrier does
sorry, not sorry. i ignored it for a reason.,it's fucking retarded.
what, you think the carrier is just going to shoot it's Phalanxes at it until the thing fucks off?
I got a better scenario. a midget suicide bomber with silly string Vs. Andre the giant.
Andre's hands are tied behind his back and he's piss drunk. who wins.
>>30034119
what if the carrier is out of routine
what if the carrier is in refit
what if the carrier is decommissioned due to age
what if the carrier is not in use due to criminal investigations
what if the carrier is appearing on a dank new History Channel special
>I got a better scenario. a midget suicide bomber with silly string Vs. Andre the giant.
the midget because andre is already dead
>>30034146
What if the tank actually shoots nukes
What if satan fucked the gunner and now he can''t drive
what if
what if
what if
no, it's fucking stupid. a decommissioned carrier will not be fighting a tank for any reason on gods' green earth
a carrier being refitted will not be alone nor in hostile water
a carrier being investigated won't be suddenly stripped of everything and shipped of to Syria
Why would you empty out everything for a camera crew? afraid they'll find all the F-22s budget?
>>30034146
>the midget because andre is already dead
What if a necromancer brought him back to life
>>30034208
>What if a necromancer brought him back to life
he would fail to move because there would not be the necessary life-bringing chemical processes going on to supply the necessary ATP and other compounds to fuel his muscles. zombies are impossible and max brooks is a faggot. and so are you.
>>30034208
Except OP wants to know what tank munitions can do to an aircraft carrier, not what would happen if a carrier and a tank fought.
Subtext, man, you got to learn to read it.
>>30034223
>zombie
I said brought back to life, not undead. faggot.
Cry more that you and this threads premise is dumber than a left handed screwdriver.
>>30034223
Cyborg andre then you autist
>>30034250
It's not that dumb. It's a simple question -- how does the armor on a carrier compare to modern tank shells? It's a pretty reasonable question with a lot of room for learning new things about how much armor ships have (and what the armor is designed to resist) and how destructive tank shells really are (and in what specific ways)
Death to America.
>>30034263
Then it wouldn't be andre. It would be a shitty robot. And it would be defeated by stairs.
>>30034273
Then use better wording instead of typing out a vs scenario.
>>30034334
>Oh no! Someone is trying to have fun on the internet!! WHILE LEARNING!!! this just fucking wont stand
Im pretty sure if the aircraft carrier fired its Phalanx at the tank the tank would get severely fucked up. Optics and gun would be destroyed for sure.
>>30034347
>Oh no, my scenario is dumb! Why can't i just ask how much damage a tank's gun can inflict on an Aircraft Carrier!
![giphy[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/zkZmEOw.gif "giphy[1].gif")
This ship was hit by one of her majesties HESH rounds.
>>30034389
HE DID YOU DUMB NIGGER.
>>30034099
>nuclear reactors are not nuclear bombs
Wrong
>>30034388
>>30034347
>WHILE LEARNING!!!
your posts on this thread have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are dumber than fuck. who exactly are you trying to kid here? not a single word of what's being said to you is penetrating, you have a head like a lead weight.
>>30034388
Tank is going to outrange Phalanx though.
>tank firing at carrier
>carrier engaging tank via phalanx plunging fire spam
>>30037651
Is that from Johnny Quest or something? I can't remember.
>>30031260
develop your hypothesis about his undeveloped hypothesis.
>>30037611
Nuclear bombs work by forcing an amount of fissile material to reach or exceed critical mass. At critical mass, the material will shed atomic bonds rapidly, releasing fantastic amounts of energy.
Nuclear reactors use the radioactive decay of nuclear materials (which are unsuitable for use in nuclear ordinance) to heat water. A catastrophic failure in a reactor is, at most, going to release a cloud of extremely radioactive steam, dust, and hippie tears. With the numerous safety measures in place with modern reactors, the control rods will drop when the plant sustains damage and the reactor will be offline.
tl;dr you're retarded because nuclear bombs and nuclear reactors are fundamentally different
>>30034208
>What if the tank actually shoots nukes
Got canceled.
>>30039112
I don't know if to be sad or to be smiling like crazy
>>30039255
Don't worry, we still have Davy Crocketts somewhere in the World that some guy can attach to a tank and we'd call it a day.
As for the dropped tank scenario, it still wouldn't do shit. A small boy would get its shit kicked in and nobody would question that, but a carrier flat top would act essentially like a barrier reducing the impact of whatever for through dramatically. Don't get me wrong, an orbital dropped anything would probably kill anything afloat, but terminal velocity could probably be negligible. In any case, a lot of this is assuming the entire crew was killed or incapacitated. Any member of the ships company could work the damage control, albeit not as well as the actual DC men.
>>30031701
Why can't any dental hygiene manufacturer besides Pepsodent and Binanca just make a fucking peppermint flavour anymore?
>>30034099
>somewhat radioactive
>>30039112
>Got canceled.
Why?
>>30034208
What if you weren't such a massive cock gobbler?
Compartmentalization. If the carrier goes to Zebra, there's no way in hell a single tank could EVER sink it.
>>30036076
That's HMS Barham. My dad is in that gif somewhere.
>>30031231
Instead of treads put turbines, put a jap in there going kamikaze then maybe
>>30037786
I believe it's a character from that old cartoon Reboot.
>>30039630
I think I see his leg flying off on the left
>>30031642
Wut?
can a tank try to hole the carrier near the water line and cripple it that way?
>>30039588
Radiation was too dangerous for crew inside? :/
>>30031231
how can you be so fucking stupid
>>30031657
The fleet would have to be EMP'd or hit with a virus for a plane borne MBT to get close enough. Reminds me of the carrier mission in Black Ops 2 + the tank mission from Ghosts. However, I don't think a Nimitz deck can handle a paradropped MBT, the 30x200' divot would mission kill any carrier.
>be commando in wacky future
>future terrorists reveal superweapon in antarctic
>ancient WW2 project using stolen British plans & Alien nanotechnology
>something something instantly convert chunk of ice shelf into carrier
>MegaHabbukuk online
>cold fusion core powers freeze field
>Navies can't scratch it
>Habbukuk crashes into coastal cities
>bombs everything else
>nothing can stop it, unless...
>Habakkuk approaches next city
>commando team gets modded Abrams
>drops from C-17
>fucks up flight deck, blowing up planes & AA
>take huge elevator down
>fight through hangar
>plow through bulkheads
>destroy reactor
>ramp off collapsing deck while escaping fireball
>land on nearby beach
>party
>/k/'s seriously discussing landing tanks onto warships
You madmen
>>30031518
Didn't something like that happen in the newer A-team movie? Minus the aircraft carrier
>>30031231
Wait what if it was a amphibious tank that fired torpedoes from its main gun
>>30041890
Already suggested >>30031666
>>30031657
>tfw scramjet/vtol transformer stealth tank
>>30031396
Nuclear reactors are shielded so thickly that the shell would literally atomise. You can watch videos of jet fighters being flown into the sort of walls they use and turning into dust. Those are land based but a warship borne one would be very well protected too
>>30036076
>>30039630
Have a much better version
>>30031666
>>30041890
>torpedo armed tanks
Japan tried it in WWII.
They sucked, mostly due to Japan being incompetent at designing armored vehicles.
>>30044985
...if this was developed by a decent military, could it be used by, say, a Coast Guard? Maybe a Mediterranean country or someone else with a large bay or small sea?
>>30045075
Not really, the idea was it would be transported by sub to a US forward base, swim to shore, drive over land to the harbor, enter the harbor and then torpedo ships at anchor. If it sounds like a lot could go wrong with that plan you are entirely correct.
Motor Torpedo Boats are a much better idea.
>>30045144
>transported by sub to a US forward base, swim to shore, drive over land to the harbor, enter the harbor and then torpedo ships at anchor
Fuck, I'd rather strap into an Ohka.
>Motor Torpedo Boats are a much better idea
Perhaps. I have a thing for vehicles that can be used in multiple ways. Everything from amphibious tanks to seaplanes.
>>30037611
>>nuclear reactors are not nuclear bombs
>Wrong
You can't turn a reactor into a nuke anon.
>>30045192
>Perhaps. I have a thing for vehicles that can be used in multiple ways. Everything from amphibious tanks to seaplanes.
Seaplanes are the shit, RIP the seaplane era.
>>30038996
Wow stop posting anytime.
>>30031299
>>30039588
>why?
Never enter a joint tank project with germany, they have autism
>>30044403
A tank shell hits with considerably more force than a jet because it's moving faster, is more dense than light aluminum aircraft parts, and the force is focused on a tiny little area rather than spread out over the size of the jet.
>>30031518
>stealth cargo plane does a HALO drop of a several tankettes/engineering vehicles on a carrier group
Would CIWS/RAM/Sea Sparrow be able to hurt an armored target?
>>30031673
>what is damage control
>>30037611
You could turn one into a dirty bomb, maybe. But that's not the same as a nuclear bomb.
>>30031396
Hard to say. For one, the reactor is below the water line so you'd need to arc the shot. You'd need to go through multiple deckplates and I don't know if current gen carriers have armored citadels.
>>30031231
Your best bet is to keep putting holes at the water line and give it a bad list. Keep at it and a carrier might capsize.
>>30034290
>would be defeated by stairs
>>30039540....
Dropped from orbit would mean it's traveling at terminal velocity
>>30047985
Meteors and space shuttles travel faster than terminal velocity bud
>>30048003
Do you even know what terminal velocity is?
>>30045209
B...but the dark knight rises said I could in 30 seconds.
>>30048003
Terminal Velocity is when air-drag is equal to the "thrust" force, which is typically the gravitational force. Drag increases with the square of velocity. Without rocket boosters, every object has a terminal velocity, past which it can't fall faster, unassisted.
>>30031231
If you drop the tank from correct height - yes. And it have to hit the reactor room, I think, for guaranteed effect.
