Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

WW2 guns that could destroy modern tanks.

Discussion in 'Weapons & Technology in WWII' started by Revue, Sep 15, 2010.

  1. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    Actually composite armor is designed for increase performance vs HEAT look at the RHA figures posted earlier and note that the RHA equivalant for HEAT is substantially higher than KE.

    One note is that most penetration data is for a single hit. Multiple hits can penetrate armor that a single hit can't. Then there's the damage to stuff outside the armor. I remember seeing a picture and a description of a T-72 that was used as a test target for a medium caliber AA gun firing a three part ammo. No penetration but on the side that was targeted it was pretty much scrubbed down to bare metal. Vission blocks crazed to unuseable, sensors gone, arials gone, suspension shot to pieces, road wheels destroyted, track in pieces, etc.
     
  2. CrazyD

    CrazyD Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,370
    Likes Received:
    30
    Doh! Should have read that more closely. Shows how much (not very!) I know about modern armor!

    Seems I should stick with my Tigers and whatnot!

    :cheers:
     
  3. Revue

    Revue Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think that the 88 can penetrate the frontal armour of modern tanks. But imagine in a city where a Leo2, Abrams, T90 or any other modern tank rolls through the street and suddenly a Sturmtiger or a ISU-152 appears almost next to it and gets to fire first. What would the damage be like?
     
  4. Triple C

    Triple C Ace

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,599
    Likes Received:
    230
    The tempo of modern mechanized company would cut a WWII anti-tank regiment to pieces. Heck, maybe a platoon could do it. I can knock out Mike Tysen cold, at the peak of his powers, if he is not allowed move or throw punches back at me. Some WWII guns can achieve limited success firing at the flank and rear of modern tanks, but really, how likely is that gonna happen?
     
  5. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    Possibly the hull will resist penetration but a 152 or larger HE direct hit is likely to knock off some essential pieces. I also expect the crew to be knocked around pretty badly. But with the Sturmtiger you have probably a better chance against a modern MBT by scrapping the vehice and using the ammo as IEDs :D.
     
  6. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    894
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    I would suspect with modern ammunition in the 88/71 or other guns mentioned they would be marginally competitive on a modern battlefield. Their big drawbacks would be their size, weight and, relative immobility. An 88/71 with APFSDS ammunition would likely penetrate about 250mm of armor at 1000 to 1500 yards. That certainly is not insignificant.
    The Soviet 100/60 on the T55 and the equivalent WW 2 era 100 mm AT gun manages 265mm at 1500 yards. So, the smaller 88 (yes, larger guns have an advantage using sabot rounds) should do at least as well.

    I'd add to the list the British 3.7" AA and US 90mm M2 AA gun as well. Either firing sabot-type rounds would still be dangerous today.

    As for HE damage: A 155mm common shell scoring a direct hit on the suspension of any tank in existance will pretty much trash most of the suspension. The track will be broken, likely in several spots, the running gear demolished, any side skirts blown away, and the tank immobilized. Large (100mm+) HE rounds hitting any thing but a heavily armored MBT will either immobilize, severely damage or, outright destroy any other AFV. Light recon tanks.... Dead. APC.... Stove in and destroyed.
    A 105mm common shell fired at a Panther at 500 yards is shown in the photo below. I have little doubt that an M2 Bradley would fare much better.
     

    Attached Files:

    • IMG.jpg
      IMG.jpg
      File size:
      132.2 KB
      Views:
      22
  7. luketdrifter

    luketdrifter Ace

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,349
    Likes Received:
    304
    Aside from the reactive armour of the Abrham's...which I think has proven itself in combat...has any M1 ever been destroyed in actual combat? It's not just steel plate like it was in WWII. As far as the M2 Bradley...the Bradley isn't built to the same standard, and isn't in fact a tank...it's an armoured troop carrier. So an 105mm shell destroying a Bradley really isn't an argument.
     
  8. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,006
    Here's a Youtube Video that looks to be the same few tanks all of which look like they were mobility kills. Depending on the situation it is customary for the tanks to be destroyed in place if the can not be recovered.

    YouTube - WAR IS HELL: A lot photos of M1 ABRAMS tanks destroyed in Iraq

    and Wikipedia offers this:'

     
  9. luketdrifter

    luketdrifter Ace

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,349
    Likes Received:
    304
    I knew there were scores of tanks destroyed by friendly fire after mobility fails. But in actual combat, gun to gun with other armour....not so much.
    But I guess that kind of war is over.
     
  10. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,006
    I don't see it either
     
  11. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    Many of those don't look like mobility kills, some are visibly on fire or burned out and the wrecks on the trailers show some pretty big holes. The trailers are low mobility so don't fit well with the "destroyed as unrecoverable" story. One of the wrecks looks like it suffered a massive internal explosion, as the ammo stwage layout of the M1 is designed to avoid that it was probably destroyed by engineers, for the others the damage looks caused by enemy action (no way to determine if tank cannon, mine, A/T missile, IED or something else even more esoteric).
     
  12. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,006
    In lieu of getting into a prolonged discussion about this I am going to say this: There have been Abrams Tanks that have been damaged enough by IED's to cause them to no longer be able to move under their own power reulting in a "Mobility Kill" there have been no "Total Kill" or "Catastrophic Kills" of M1 Abrams tanks. It is general practice for the tanks that are not readily recoverable to be destroyed in place so as not to be captured by the enemy.

    "Readily Recoverable" means not practical or would hinder the movement of the larger unit or expose recovery personel to undue risk.



    On the link there is also a table which provides bumper numbers for the tanks that were taken out of action.

    All kills that were the result of direct enemy contact were considered "Mobility Kills"
     
  13. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    Looking at the pictures (assuming they are not fakes) there is a lot of word splitting in that comunique.
    None of the vehicles seem to be the victim of tank guns, most look like they met an IED or a mine.

    Row one coll 1 & 2 are almost certainly the same vehicle, some other are possibly of the same tank too but not so easy to be sure.

    I would expect a tank that has been "demolished" by engineers to look like the wreck on row four column four, that vehicle is unlikely to be the same as any other pic as it shows no trace of fire damage and the rubber on the tracks is still there.

    What I call a "mobility kill" is row 2 colunm 2 and column 3 (looks like only the rubber on the tracks and roadweels is burning on col 3 despite the impressive smoke).

    Row 1 col 1, row 2 col 4, row 3 col 1 and col 2 and row 2 col 2 all look like they have internal fires, unless caused by demolitions that's not a "mobility kill".

    Row four cols 3 and 4 also look like rubber fires on col 4 both tracks are affected so I wouldn't bet on fuel and ammo eventually going as well, the guy on the bike doesn't look too worried though.
     

    Attached Files:

  14. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,006
    That's exactly what you are seeing TOS. There are accounts, on the site which I linked, that tells of tankers placing thermite grenades in the engine and ammunition compartments. I guess the idea is to burn everything in the interior to deny the enemy access to technology and ammunition. The remaining "hulk" can be revovered at a later time and shipped back to be refurbished or recycled.
     
  15. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    I think the one in row 1 colum 3 is the one that got caught in an ammod dump "event".
     
  16. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,300
    Likes Received:
    1,919
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    There's only one way to settle this.
    We need someone to buy a Challenger, Abrams, Leopard, Merkava & T90, along with a wide array of functional WW2 AT pieces & ammunition.

    I propose that this important work is carried out somewhere easily accessible by car from my house.

    If there's any eccentric squillionaires out there who are interested, please contact me by PM with your bank details.
     
    Otto likes this.
  17. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    955
    Aschurch poopy...they have a challenger outside...lots of room inside...loads of kit hidden not used for years...big hangers...About to be sold off...Lots of cold war stuff from all nations and Argentina disspeared into this voluminous place...Tewkesbury..not too far from you, round the corner from me..I propose a recce....



    http://www.google.com/search?q=ashchurch+army+camp&hl=en&client=aff-maxthon-newtab&channel=t2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=orhJUeKbEqbG0QXWxoDIBQ&ved=0CF0QsAQ&biw=980&bih=626
     
  18. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,329
    Likes Received:
    1,712
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    Even without penetration, aren't crews killed by the blast wave or simple shock of a high explosive near miss? In one book I've got around here (Memoirs of a forward artillery observer), the writer describes calling in a salvo of 155's on several panthers and when later he gets an opportunity to examine the result on one vehicle, he finds the crew all dead even though the tank had not been actually hit. In that anecdote, he doesn't say whether the hatches are open - he probably doesn't know since the vehicles had already been cleared by infantry before he got to examine them. I'd have to look again, but I believe that salvo might have been a ToT with many rounds delivered simultaneously.

    Anyway, it would seem that no matter how good your armor is, if you are exposed to the pressure wave of a large explosion (presumably you'd have to have a hatch open), the crew would be killed.
     
  19. chitoryu12

    chitoryu12 recruit

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    2
    If it was large enough, yes. But anything but the biggest World War II pieces or an artillery strike likely wouldn't cause a fatal or even damaging pressure wave. Modern tanks are protected for that possibility as much as possible, so the likely result of any World War II tank or most anti-tank guns making a hit at typical combat ranges would be a loud bang, shaking, and then the attacker promptly being blown to shreds.

    Even if you've got guys with anti-tank weapons like the Bazooka or mines, the best you'll get is a mobility kill. And a tank with a blown track may not be able to maneuver, but it can still shoot.
     
  20. George Patton

    George Patton Canadian Refugee

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    1,171
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Today is your lucky day. Prince Hamid Nakaluta of Nigeria recently contacted me via email asking for my assistance.... Something about the death of a client as a result of a nasty lion mauling which has left approximately 901.2 billion dollars in a safety deposit box on the outskirts of Lagos. In return for my support, he has promised me a small percentage of this money.

    However, I took the liberty of mentioning your armor testing idea. The prince assures me that he is very interested in your project. He will gladly fund it if we transfer $964.93 for airfare to Perfidious Albion to his bank account (which, for tax reasons, is registered to a fellow in Detroit with a yahoo.com email address).

    His majesty is awaiting our reply.
     
    lwd likes this.

Share This Page