Could the last generation of the STUG kill a modern tank?
>>30318742
I always thought the StuG IV was nicer than the StuG III but that's just my opinion
>>30318742
Honestly, I'm not entirely sure about the stug but this could without a doubt.
>>30318753
That'd literally be a single-shot wonder at best.
>>30318753
Look it even comes with noose to hang yourself after you miss your target.
>>30318756
It comes with 13 shots.
>>30318770
Crane.
>>30318778
>It comes with 13 shots.
I wasn't talking ammo capacity, more like "Managing a reload". Also >>30318770
>implying
point plank at the side of a T-55 it most likely could. but thats about it.
>>30318742
Why does the AI always spam these things in CoH?
Annoying as fuck.
>>30318798
then again, the T-55 wouldnt really be considered modern
>>30318802
My AI always spams fucking Panzerwerfers or Hetzers man
>>30318798
>point plank at the side of a T-55 it most likely could. but thats about it.
80mm
If the stugs had no problem killing KV-1's then a T-55 should work from the side. But the front is out of the question.
>>30318742
Penetration of the 7.5cm KwK 40 L/48 gun with its best Pzgr.Ptr.40 ammo peaks at 143mm of steelarmour at 100m range.
An Abrams has no less than 470mm of steel equivalent armour all around.
So, no.
Learn to use Wikipedia you useless millennial.
>>30318813
>T-55
Actually, It could do a hit from the front.
However.. You would need to be extremely lucky underneath the connection for the turret.
>>30318822
>An Abrams has no less than 470mm of steel equivalent armour all around.
>all around
What in the actual fuck are you saying?
>>30318826
Im not so sure about that.
>>30318837
13+ luck?
>>30318833
Not him but tanks tend to have thicker armor at the front (for engaging other tanks). He is saying the minimum thickness anywhere around the tank (front, rear, or sides) is 470mm.
>>30318840
Well you might have more luck going for the gunners sight.
>>30318833
Armor penetration is rated in mm of steel. It's just a way to standardize penetration and armor protection in a way that can be easily compared.
At a minimum, the Abrams provides an equivalent of 470mm worth of steel armor protection in all directions to the crew. Except the bottom, but I don't see any realistic scenario where a tank would be shooting directly at the bottom of another one.
>>30318822
i'm mostly a planefag, but this has always been a bit problematic to me. is that 470mm against shaped chage rounds or is it something else against AP shells. and is there a difference between full size AP rounds and sabots and so? also assume it is actually 470mm, and it would be shot in the ass from 50 meters by pic related. because of all the fucking WoT results, i cant quite get a good number for penetration of this thing, but its cited as everything from just over 200 to up to 350mm of steel. i just have a really hard time seeing a 100 lb AP round at almost 900 m/s just... stopping and bouncing off or something. or maybe i am just retarded
I always wondered, making modern assault guns be viable what so ever? Like taking for example a leopard chassis and giving it a 140mm gun with armored structure around it and machine guns modern electronics and sights. Would this be a cheaper viable alternative to a mbt?
>>30318859
>At a minimum, the Abrams provides an equivalent of 470mm worth of steel armor protection in all directions to the crew
You're full of 470mm of bullshit. The abrams does not provide 470mm of RHA all around since it does not have that thickness all around or the advance material to do so all around since that would be extremely expensive and heavy.
>>30318867
No one wants to invest it into it.
Honestly, I'd just take the current tank gun on a abrams and make it rapid fire.
>>30318918
So.. Just make autoloaders faster?
>>30318883
470mm EQUIVALENT
Composites nigga.
>>30318883
>extremely expensive and heavy
Look up how much Abrams weigh and how much they cost some time.
It's not literally 470mm of armor. as >>30319087 said, EQUIVALENT
>>30319087
>>30319094
>all around
You think the side hull is equal to 470mm of RHA? The rear? Jesus fucking christ, summer fags.
>>30318742
Judging on the armor thickness and penetration figures mentioned in >>30318822 and the pic from>>30319388 I would say no.
>>30318867
>>30318918
You guys forgetting about the Swedish StuG?
>>30319555
i-its an MBT i promise
>>30318867
Probably cheaper to buy a tow missle or a javelin at that point. Direct fire artillery can take care of the rest.
>>30319756
Probably cheaper to make anti missile technology at this point.
>>30318867
As extensive a redesign as would be needed for any current tank to fit a 140mm gun, it may work but I don't see such a thing being considered viable unless total war breaks out and ICBMs are somehow neutralized.
>>30319326
>not knowing how composites work
>>30319943
Actually the best way would be to transmute the warhead into lead, as to how that could be done?
>>30319865
Point taken, but what use would a hull mounted tank destroyer be in today's day in age. Sure it would be a good defense against MBTs but then it would be far less versatile than an MBT since it won't be able to fire on the move or aim at a hard target without first moving the entire tank to face it. A self propelled artillery piece has the gun, has the armor, and can provide indirect fire so if anything just improve the direct fire capabilities on that and your done.
>>30318867
>>30318864
Something like Chobham armor will have a considerably higher RHA equivalent rating against shaped charges than it does against a kinetic penetrator, since it has been designed to be very good against shaped charges.
A plain steel armor will have a much more "even" RHA equivalent against different threats, since that's just a slightly better version of RHA, or if you're cheap, it outright is RHA.
What happens to an AP shell that failed to penetrate probably varies with the exact nature of the shell and the armour. Bounce off, mushroom out, shatter, embed itself...
>>30320041
as mentioned earlier, that would be the strv 103. i'm sure you could swap out the 105 for a 120 or something and ERA the shit out of the front.
not that it ever saw service, but it would be very effective in defensive operation, i can imagine. or in a fire support role
i'm still insisting its an MBT though
>>30320041
>>30320072
At the time the Strv-103 was designed, Tank stabilizers still kinda sucked so Sweden didn't really consider them worthwhile, and that firing would always occur from stationary anyway.
The interesting part is, however, that they claimed the Strv-103 could actually aim at targets perpendicular to it's point of aim faster than other conventional MBTs of the era. Something about the driver and gunner being better coordinated on a fixed chassis.
>>30320107
>driver and gunner being better coordinated on a fixed chassis
...i think its because its the same guy
my uncle drove a 103, but for some reason he only had 2 guys in it. he said he always wanted to control the gun himself (loading, aiming and all that) because the commander had controls for all the positions in the tank (gun, driving, radio) and let the driving to the other guy.
sadly, the other guy drowned it and they both got court martialed
>>30320137
the 103 had two drivers. the second for reverse.
>>30318797
Now post the one where a cargo plane filled with explosives crashes into the wall.
>>30320072
My only worry with up gunning something like that would be crew ergonomics and shell weight. Now I'm ignorant to how spacious the inside of that vehicle is but I do know that when they up gunned the STUGs in wwii crews had a harder time loading shells due to the lack of space caused by a gun. Now considering that modern tank shells are considerably heavier than back then 140mm shells even more so those problems could be even worse.
>>30320150
in the case of most tans you are absolutely right. the 103 however is fully autoloaded by a drum or box or some shit in the rear. it even ejects the shells after firing. and the whole gun system is mounted all the way in the back, meaning it could theoretically be enlarged rearwards to mount a bigger gun. i am only speculating though
>>30320143
i thought the backseat driver was in charge of the radio, since he isnt doing anything most of the time. but i äm not sure. uncle told me he used the radio himself. might have been the commanders job usually aswell
>>30318802
Most bang for your buck as far as I can tell. The ai isnt necessarily concerned with practicality, just how much resources spent/what can be killed. At least that's what it always seemed like to me
>>30318822
>>30318822
Maybe if you take into account a hit from the side that includes the skirt and striking a road wheel you'll get almost 200mm effective, but that's about it. A WWII panzer fault could penetrate a T-72 from the side according to zaloga figures, but the after armor effects wouldn't be that great (I'd argue it'd do little more than a pencil size hole with negligible spalling) if it hit a wheel in addition to the skirt.
>>30319326
this fucking thread makes my head hurt
>>30319326
>I think, therefore it is
>>30318753
Of course. So will 203mm artillery pieces.
>>30318991
Abrams doesn't have an autoloader
>>30318867
You'll see those once some conventional, long "total" war by 2 tankbuilding nations will be fought. Which is unlikely but it may happen some day.
Right now nobody uses them because you can just have MBT and as long as HE shells go you aren't necessarily far behind "real" artillery because we use quite big guns nowadays. Before or right after WW2 it made sense because putting 125mm gun on a tank with rotating turret was an excess.
However if the resources and production capability becomes a limit, there will be a point in making assault guns. As a mean of saving money on turret motors etc.
>>30318742
Depends, if it shoots the rear, it may get an easy kill.
>>30318797
>Arrow hits fuel tank
>boom explosion
>Arrow pierces tail
How?
>>30318822
>Abrams has 470mm of RHS equivalent
>470mm RHS exhaust cover
>>30320150
Your issue with a 140mm gun is that you'd basically have to either completely redesign the tank or cut corners and make compromises on it. Let's take a look at what all changes you'd need to accommodate this kind of gun:
1. An autoloader. Even if you went with 2-part ammo the shells would be too heavy for a human loader to handle.
2. A longer chassis. No way around it, the chassis has to get longer to keep the ground pressure at reasonable levels, especially since you can't make the tracks wider and the things still be rail-mobile.
3. Bigger engine. Unless you want to top out at 35mph going downhill and take an hour getting there, you're going to need a much bigger engine to get all this extra weight moving at a decent pace
4. Heavier suspension. Yeah...your ass is fat.
5. New turret. No amount of modification is going to get that gun, the heavier shells, and an autoloader in any existing turrets.
I think the estimates the Army came up with when they were toying with the idea back in the Cold War was that to do this upgrade on an Abrams would have pushed its weight up to around 90 tons with all those changes.
>>30318751
Not mechanically, it wasn't. Almost as front heavy as the JgpzIV.
>>30319945
The composites are only on the front and on the turret sides.
The rest is plain old thin RHA
>>30320293
>I think
So now you are gona tell me 30mm of RHA will somehow equal to 470mm?
>>30320567
It's Chobham and not RHA, but this anon is still right. Shooting its exhaust will kill it.
>>30320581
>It's Chobham and not RHA
Do you know what RHA is?
>>30320581
>It's Chobham
it's not
ut's some other alloy
>>30320597
Rolled homogenous armor, meaning just metal.
>>30318778
>crane
He knows that, its a joke dum dum.
>>30320567
I use to fix airplanes your pic is beautiful. Sometimes I would work on airplanes that were 30 years old, all fucking paint chipped and just disgusting. But they would come back from a major inspection and would look like your pic cause of the repaint.
>>30320597
Rolled Homogeneous Armor, meaning just metal.
>>30320615
>>30320621
4chin hive mind confirmed.
>>30320621
Meaning steel of a certain quality standard. So, steel metal. Not ERA or composite sandwich or active protection or whatever shit people are coming up with. Tech moves on.
>>30320639
Then what was your point in >>30320597 you fucking dumbshit?
>>30319326
>Jesus fucking christ, summer fags
>>30320660
Is anyone stupid enough to think this thing is equivalent to 470mm RHA?
>>30320615
>>30320621
And what is the M1A1 made of? RHA, with composite armor and other cool things at the front of the hull, turret and sides of the turret.
>>30320653
Wrong anon dude...
>>30320676
Oh okay. Must have mistaken you for him.
>>30320669
dude anon its in inches, you can see it has 40 inc. of armor at the rear.
fucking dumbshit summerfags
>>30320665
You're right, there's just a thin piece of a metal at the back and then its straight into the crew compartment, absolutely correct, well done Mr Tank engineer, you're better than thg guy.
>>30320665
I'm pretty sure his ire was aimed at 'summer fags'.
Only faggots say that.
>>30319945
>He fucking thinks there's composites in the primary armor plate of the rear and side hull
Jesus, fucking Christ, this summer is worst than ever before.
>>30320711
>>30320567
No, it's straight in the engine, which will catch fire since the round will probably be a PzGr. 39.
>>30320726
And your grammar is only slightly better.
>>30320711
That is correct. You know why they made it so? Any "enemy" that get into a position to see the rear of a M1 abrams tank is either dead or POW.
Look at 1991 faggot. Wish yuropoors like you would just die of.
>>30320737
What's even wrong in his sentence?
Also,
>Oh, I see you have an argument
>I was about to say I was wrong when I found out a fault totally unrelated to the debate!
>Haha, sucks to be you
>>30320734
It sure is a good thing that the Abrams is designed to prevent fires in the crew compartment.
>>30320743
>Freedom deployed
>Typhoon
>T-90
>Mangusta/Tigre
>>30320780
How many times? Even if it extinguished the fire the first time, the crew would be fucked since it can't move, and the enemy could just take a second shot.
>>30318867
Big problem is that you cant shoot on the move, not such a disadvantage in WWII but a huge handicapped matched up with modern MBTs.
Thats why the Swedish Stug was a developmental dead end.
>>30320734
>it's straight in the engine
....I was taking the piss, I know that.
>>30320743
Again, I'm not really sure what you're getting at, I'm aware that there isn't an empty space, do you have sarcasm where you come from?
>>30320750
I wasn't arguing with him, just felt like pointing out the faults in his sentence.
>worst than ever before
>Jesus, fucking Christ
>>30320791
>the enemy would just take a second shot
We're talking about a Stug here still right? It'd be dead after the first shot.
>>30320823
kys yuropoor.
>>30320784
troll pic, i dont think a single thing in that is american, other than the bird.
>>30320042
What a nice little fence.
>this thread
Very few tanks have composite armor on the sides/rear, and the ones that do weight a fuckton (Challenger 2) or sacrifice frontal armor to do so (Merkava).
>>30318797
I knew anime was fucking stupid, but for FFS.
>>30318742
Rear aspect, otherwise no
>>30320865
*Europoor
>>30320694
kill me
NOBODY USES INCHES FOR ARMOR YOU BUMBLING RETARD, EVEN AMERICANS
>>30319087
Put in visuals for a dumb nigga like you
>>30318742
Not unless you think slavshit designed 40 years ago is "modern" because it is still in use.
>>30320836
If it sneaked on undetected on the back of an M1 and knocked out the engine, I'd love to see the crew try to manually turn the turret in time.
>>30321051
55mm
really
it's 2016
>>30321530
What do you expect from ERA slabs you idiot?
It's 238MM HEAT, and it's rear side armor. They won't put 2940KE 300000000000000 HEAT armor there.
>>30318797
Ahahahah what the fuck did I just watch?
>>30321420
>A ww2 era mobile gun with glass optics and a 25Mph max speed is going to sneak up behind a platoon of M1A2 Abrams tanks with thermal sites capable of identifying targets for miles,a 45 mph cruising speed, and BFT systems.
Dude you are very ignorant about tanks.
>>30321805
The OP asked if it was possible. It is.
>>30321805
IEDs manage to sneak up on them.
Throw in a bit of interesting scenery for a hide and you're just talking about penetration.
>>30321582
There is no ERA on that picture. It's an M1A1HA, no TUSK.
>>30321929
>Is it possible? It is.
It's really not though. There is no plausible scenario where a stug can defeat an Abrams or any other modern MBT.
A stug cannot "sneak up" behind a platoon of Abrams tanks, by the time the stug was even close enough to see an Abrams with it's optics it would be a burning wreck. How do you sneak up behind a tank platoon? You know they will have a tank with the turret oriented behind them when they move, right?
You know that they will almost always see the stugg before it is cogniscent of them, right? You realize the Abrams will be so much faster that the stug will never be able to out maneuver them, right?
Inb4
>Hurr Muh theoretical autism possibilities
>>30322018
>What are thermals: the post
>>30322111
I think OP was asking about an uncrewed modern tank and the stug trying every shot to penetrate.
>>30322018
>A StuG can sneak through 'interesting scenery' just as easily and stealthily as a durkha burying an IED into the ground
>Against a modern MBT with thermal optics
>>30322018
>An antitank mine is the same as a 25 ton armored vehicle
>Buried artillery shells are the same as a 25 ton armored vehicle
>An EFP IED the size of a five gallon bucket is the same as a 25 ton armored vehicle
Is there one uneducated retard spamming the thread or did a special ed summer school forget to set parental locks on the computers?
>>30322189
Yes, there is one uneducated retard it seems.
>>30318822
>>30318859
>>30319087
>>30319094
>>30320660
>>30320711
>>30319945
>>30319523
The pic in >>30319388 seems to show areas of the side hull with less than 100mm equivalent vs KE, which could be penetrated by the KwK 40.
>>30321582
So the ONLY protection in that area is ERA, which is useless against KE? ERA is supposed to supplement existing protection, not be your last line of defense.
>>30322018
>>30322164
What if the StuG was stationary with its engine off, hidden in the brush say 50 meters off to the side of a road the M1A1 was traveling on. Would the M1A1's thermal optics be able to pick it up under those circumstances?
>>30323006
>ERA, which is useless against KE?
Depends on the ERA.
>>30323006
>What if the StuG was...
Yes, you can manufacture a scenario to produce the results you desire.
>>30318742
>Could the last generation of the STUG kill a modern tank?
Only if you're a gold spending premium ammo using faggot.
>>30323383
Only fairly recent ERA models can do anything against kinetic penetrators, and even then it's somewhat lacking. It still exists predominantly to protect against HEAT.
>>30323443
The Abrams has over 3000 HP; unless the player is a gibbering idiot/AFK, it would only be a dent in the pool.
>>30323006
>ERA is supposed to supplement existing protection, not be your last line of defense.
Except you won't have a tank round hit your engine, unless you've done really fucked up on positioning.
What's going to hit your engine is the Soviet soldier's RPG-7 fired in an ambush, thus using HEAT.
>>30323443
>get crew for the JT88
>spend 8 times teh tanks value on binos, a net and a rammer
>mount 105
>spam HEAT
>club the everloving fuck out of tier 4s who cant even see you
>>30320567
Where did you source this information is what I'm getting at. 30mm of RHA? says who
>>30323383
>Yes, you can manufacture a scenario to produce the results you desire.
It's not a particularly specific or contrived scenario (apart from a functioning StuG existing in the modern day). Basically you have a M1 platoon travelling down a path through the woods, and have the StuG hidden 50 meters off the side of the road with its engine off. Now, the M1's are outside of friendly territory, so it's not like an ambush would be completely unexpected. Under these circumstances, would the M1A1's be able to detect the StuG before they passed it?
>>30323644
So there's never going to be a circumstance where a tank has its side to the enemy?
>>30318797
>>30320517
>>30320890
>>30321635
The arrows are made of metal you ignorant fools. Don't make fun of anime just because you're too stupid to understand it!
>>30318742
It could probably destroy a mekava, those things are the shittiest modern tank.
>>30318742
No because ammo.
>>30318751
Hans my boy, you can ether ride smooth and get hot bitches in Benz made Pzkw III. Or you can have shitty drivewheel, leaf spring Krupp Pzkw IV chassis.
>>30318802
It actually spams StuHs, not StuGs. The AI seems to be programmed to spam call-in units.
I play COH with the Back to Basics mod that makes the AI noticeably smarter. Also it doesn't spam call-ins - in fact if anything it calls them in too infrequently.
>>30318742
Absolutely not.
>>30324321
You better be trolling you stupid nigger
>>30324284
People still produce heat. Also, the tracks will be hot from being run.
>>30323723
>Jgtiger 88
>105
Do you mean the Jagdpanther?
>>30326783
But is it enough heat to show up easily on the Abrams' optics?
>>30326810
No anon he means the JT8.8. Blame Wargaming.
>>30318797
Civilization.webm
>>30318794
Shoot and scoot.
>>30327272
>Shoot and scoot in a fucking STURMTIGER
>>30327312
This made me laugh more than it should have.
>>30323445
>and even then it's somewhat lacking
Dude. They are way more effective in reducing the penetrative capabilities of projectiles than any known armor simply because they have energy of their own that makes interaction with the projectile way more violent and damaging.
NERA needs layers and spacing and even then its not as efficient, mostly introducing yawing effects and eroding the tip as it goes but with ERA with APFSDS projectiles in mind it could outright break the rod in pieces.
>>30319555
Should be "I AMS BECOMES DEATH"
>>30324073
see>>30318833
Well it may not be exactly 30mm but around that figure.
>>30320743
>dat image
Britain tries too hard.
>>30318797
Wtf. What anime is this?
>>30319603
it was a medium tank/mbt
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4fj5ow/what_factors_led_to_the_design_and_deployment_of/
>>30320072
Swapping the gun out is a massive pain in the ass. You practically need to rebuild the whole ammo compartment.
In fact you wont even be able to fit modern ammo for the L7 due to it being too long. That was one of the reasons the Strv 103 was retired before the centurion in swedish service.
Main problem with that tank though is the rapid development of gun stabilization. And modern apfsds projectiles which ignore sloping.
>>30330787
owari no seraph
>>30330787
A shit one
>>30318770
lel'd
>>30320711
pretty much this
>>30330787
Seraph of the end. Interesting anime
>>30320540
You must be an idiot or some stunted Koolaid drinker if you think the side and front have anywhere near that level of protection.
M1A1 tanks in Nassiriyah were ambushed and penetrated by ZU-23 mm guns, among others. There is a famous Merkava tank that was penetrated by a single .50 caliber round some time in the 80s.
>>30320581
>It's Chobham and not RHA
Are Abrahams Kool-aid drinkers the most cancerous posters on /k/?
Jesus fucking Christ..
>>30333818
>There is a famous Merkava tank that was penetrated by a single .50 caliber round some time in the 80s.
[citation needed].
>>30318797
Long Bow Vs. Long Bow
I think the irony was the point rather than practicality or anything realistic.
>>30334090
Well Merkava is pretty shit irl. Cuck l44 gun, frontal armor than can't stop any modern ap rounds which results in engine getting destoryed after the first penetration, its huge and slow (the slowest 3rd gen mbt)
>>30336681
>[citation needed]
hard to understand that?
