/k/ Could a Maus destroy a m1a2 Abrams?
0/10
>>30578121
In theory? Its gun could probably penetrate the back of an Abrams.
In practice, you're better off just dismounting the gun from the vehicle and ambushing the Abrams with it. The maus itself is a literal dead weight. Or, even using the ammo as IEDs.
>>30578156
Thanks anon.
>>30578121
Even BMP can destroy Abrams.
>>30578121
Depends what kind of kill you mean. A 12,8cm HE shell can perform a mobility or firepower kill quite easily, if it hits.
The 12,8cm APCBC-HE shell would need to hit the rear side or back of the hull to have any chance of possibly penetrating. The 12cm L/44 would be able to pen the Maus at almost all angles and ranges with HEAT or kinetic penetrators.
>>30578121
Why would you expect it to? It couldn't even destroy the Red Army.
>>30578156
Could a modern heavy lift helicopter lift the maus? And then just drop it on the abrams?
>>30578121
If you dropped it out of an airplane, sure.
>>30578533
Question about Abrams and dropping things on it:
...could you bend the main cannon tube by dropping a car on it?
>>30578564
Most definitely but it would require an aircraft height drop. And the Abrams is known for having a good bit of speed.
if the abrams are powered by a jet engine then how come it can't fly?
makes u think
>>30580088
Environmental hippes nadr the army put a governor on it .
Fucking dems
>>30578564
You can bend them by running it into a highway overpass in Baghdad.
>>30578508
>Could a modern heavy lift helicopter lift the maus? And then just drop it on the abrams?
The Maus weighs 188 tons. The largest helo (Mi-26) can only carry 20 tons. You would need 10 Mi-26's.
>>30580521
Make it happen
>>30580521
Or 5 V-12.
>>30578121
What were they thinking while making these vehicles, did they not think about logistic at all. I wonder how many litres/galons these thinks used just to travel 1 kilometers
In fact, the only aircraft that can lift the Maus is An-225.
>>30580840
So being able to drop Maus on things would give the An-225 tactical warfare capabilities
>>30578121
Sure.
It'd pierce the side or rear handily.
>>30580838
Being as it was cancelled fairly early on, and only continued by the design firm, I'm sure they realized.
>>30581499
Nope
>>30581532
Sorry, but your wrong.
Modern MBTs have poor non-frontal armor sans applique. Thus, there are versions more than vulnerable enough to be defeated.
>>30581443
THIS
>>30581595
"your" an idiot
>>30580769
Why are they letting it rust....
>>30582004
Sorry you feel bad, m80, do your reading and you'll lose fewer arguments.
>>30578121
Could? Plausibly. Would? Not likely.
The 12.8cm gun is actually oversized by modern standards so while it would have as much penetration as a 120mm it would have comparable kinetic energy.
However, the M1 Abrams is designed with modern 105 anti-tank rounds in mind. so I honestly doubt that the Maus could penetrate the frontal armor. The rear and sides of the turret are fair game, though.
>>30578156
>Its gun could probably penetrate the back of an Abrams.
If using 1944 ammo, if you'd develop modern round for it I'm pretty sure it would do well from sides and front.
>>30581508
wasn't the problem that is tended to sink into the earth if they drove it on anything other than specially prepared concrete roads?
>>30578121
Nope.
Just put the Abrams on the other side of a bridge.
>>30578121
It might be able to penetrate the rear armor if it gets lucky.
However, the real issue is that the Abrams would be able to see the Maus before it sees the Abrams. However, despite it's massive size, the Maus would have no chance against M829A4 APFSD, or even most of the HE rounds carried on the Abrams.
>>30578121
Perhaps the gun of the Maus could penetrate the armour of the M1
But in a combat situation the M1 would destroy the Maus first
>>30578121
Well the Maus is and never was operational, so I'm going to say the Abrams can sleep safe.
>>30585008
Could swear at least one was actually used as a last ditch defense where they made it, but failed horribly.
>>30582044
Because it was first and foremost created for fast ICBM deployment. And since 70s saw the boom in mobile ICBM development with SS-14, SS-16, SS-20 and SS-24 becoming a thing V-12 was no longer a viable option for its mission.
>>30580521
What if the maus was on the moon?
>>30580242
/r/ing that pic of the bent abrams barrel innadesert
>>30582360
The gun probably couldn't handle modern charge loads. It'd need a redesign to the point that it's basically not the same gun any more.
>>30586322
Things really haven't changed that much.
Its muzzle energy compares favorably to modern guns.
>>30578508
>It couldn't even destroy the Red Army.
>>30582044
Aluminum doesn't rust.
>>30578448
>Depends what kind of kill you mean. A 12,8cm HE shell can perform a mobility or firepower kill quite easily, if it hits.
>The 12,8cm APCBC-HE
They also had A.P.D.S. (Pz.Gr. 44)
Which has about 400mm RHA penetration
Then its down to what flavor of m1a2 it is. The armor packages have changed a bunch over the year and im sure the ones we sold to egypt and other arab "allies" would be much easier to pen that one that came off the refurb line for the army in 2012.
>>30584963
To its credit, the Maus has exactly "one" hardpoint that might be able to survive a direct hit from HE: the gun mantle, which is so thick that an RPG-7 is unable to penetrate due to its sheer thickness.
It would still probably knock it out.
>>30588670
THICC
H
I
C
C
Yes, all it requires is some creative deployment.
