StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Howedar wrote: The only 75mm cannon ever carried by an aircraft was stuck in the nose of a B-25, to the best of my knowledge.

Actually, the Germans had the Henschel Hs129 B-3, armed with a custom 75mm PaK 40 cannon that could fire at 40 rds/min.

You're right.

I knew there was one combat aircraft of WWII that had a 75mm

because it was mentioned in Il-2 comments about it in HAB...

Cpl Kendall wrote: Is there any proof that the Abrams can lay a screen with it's exhaust? It was my understanding that most NATO tanks cannot lay an exhaust screen, and only had their smoke grenades.

Your understanding would be wrong. Most NATO tanks do have the capability, its quite simple and highly useful so there's really no reason not to have it.

Vympel wrote:One tank for every round of ammo the M1 has. Then one extra. That's how many.

Unless the M1 has SLAP ammunition in which case it likely could rack up many more kills with bursts of machine gun fire into the flanks.

Howedar wrote:Neither of those carried anything like a 75mm cannon. The largest weapon either ever carried was a 37mm, and the P-38 only packed a 20mm in production. Of course either could use rockets to potentially ruin the Abrams' day.

The only 75mm cannon ever carried by an aircraft was stuck in the nose of a B-25, to the best of my knowledge.

The Germans mounted 75mm anti tank guns in several different bombers and ground attack aircraft like the Ju 88 and Hs 129, the Japanese also mounted 75mm guns on a few aircraft, and Italy went even further with guns as large as 102mm in there four engine bombers.

Chardok wrote:Abrams uses JP8, IIRC, not diesel.

Well now I get to use all that good ol' fashion bulk fuel school knowledge

1) Yes they burn JP-8 (used to be JP-5 but the US made a big switch about 3/4 years ago to make everything JP-8 )

2) JP-8 is a Diesel variant, in other words it is essentially the same as #2 Diesel except that a number of additives have been placed in it which make it burn cleaner and actually a little hotter.

3) That said it'll burn if it reaches ignition temperature (which is normally somewhere above 120 F IIRC) though it won't explode unless you have the proper fuel/vapor ratio which means basically it won't blow just slowly burn away its fuel.

The firefly with the 17pdr gun, the sentinal AC4 also armed with a 17pdr gun and maybe a panther could take an abrams from the side. If you had enough you wouldn't need to shoot and move as many WW2 tanks lacked true stabilisation (as did some post war soviet tanks). The Abrams could shoot and move at I think 50% speed (maybe more if the turret can track fast enough). All that said a penetration into the turret or the glacis is unlikely even with the 17pdr that could kill a tiger out to 1000 meteres ( just not reliably hit it). The jumbo with the 105mm gun and heat could kill from the rear but was slow as were most ww2 tanks. No WW2 tank could keep up with an abrams on road or off.

There is a reason we don't use the sherman or any other WW2 tank any more.

the ww2 tanks would not be ably to harm the adams unless you got a ton of them all fireing at once. the adams tank has been shown to take muyiple hits from russian main line battle tanks (T-72s) and still fight. in the gulf war a adams got stuck in some mud and was attacked by by 3 t-72s. the adams destoyed all three after taking hits from all of the tme and taking no damage. the army then decided to destoye the tank themselves rather then pull it out. after putting three rounds from another adams 120mm cannon into it they ended up pulling the stuck tank out.

Also during the gulf war no adams tanks were lost and only one crewman was killed

the ww2 tanks have no chance.

m112880 wrote:Also during the gulf war no adams tanks were lost and only one crewman was killed

Wrong, several Abrams (Adams? WTF?) were knocked out in Gulf War 1, and more in Gulf War 2.

Some were disabled, none were destroyed in GW1 and none have ever been destroyed (or rendered ineffective) as a result of tank fire either enemy or friendly.

CmdrWilkens wrote:Some were disabled, none were destroyed in GW1 and none have ever been destroyed (or rendered ineffective) as a result of tank fire either enemy or friendly.

But some have been destroyed by other means (i.e, one was blown up recently when it ran over several mines stacked on top of each other). Are there any figures on how many M1's have become "permanant losses" over the years?

harbringer wrote:The firefly with the 17pdr gun, the sentinal AC4 also armed with a 17pdr gun and maybe a panther could take an abrams from the side. If you had enough you wouldn't need to shoot and move as many WW2 tanks lacked true stabilisation (as did some post war soviet tanks). The Abrams could shoot and move at I think 50% speed (maybe more if the turret can track fast enough). All that said a penetration into the turret or the glacis is unlikely even with the 17pdr that could kill a tiger out to 1000 meteres ( just not reliably hit it). The jumbo with the 105mm gun and heat could kill from the rear but was slow as were most ww2 tanks. No WW2 tank could keep up with an abrams on road or off.

I doubt very much a 17-pounder could get through the Abram's side armor unless it was using APDS ammo, and then only at close range. The 75mm KwK-42 gun used by the Panther wouldn't get through either (the Germans never used APDS ammo, IIRC). Also, the 17-pounder would have only a fraction of the penetration necessary to get through a Abram's turret face or glacis armor even at point blank range (even when using APDS). Armor technolegy (not to mention armor defeating technolegy) has come a long way since WWII. If the best estimates of the Abrams frontal armor are true (the true figures are classified), then an Abrams (which is estimated to have frontal RHA protection equivilent of 800-1000mm against kinetic rounds), would have 4-5 times the frontal protection of a King Tiger, yet only weigh as much. The side armor might even provide the same protection as a King Tiger's front.

I doubt very much a 17-pounder could get through the Abram's side armor unless it was using APDS ammo, and then only at close range. The 75mm KwK-42 gun used by the Panther wouldn't get through either (the Germans never used APDS ammo, IIRC).

I only said probably, that said I WAS refering to use of APDS or APCR (where appropriate) since solid AP would be some what pointless.

If the best estimates of the Abrams frontal armor are true (the true figures are classified), then an Abrams (which is estimated to have frontal RHA protection equivilent of 800-1000mm against kinetic rounds), would have 4-5 times the frontal protection of a King Tiger, yet only weigh as much. The side armor might even provide the same protection as a King Tiger's front.

If this is true then the 17pdr using APDS WILL kill an Abrams from the side, I personally think it might be a 40-50% chance of a kill if that and would require enough firefly's to get a kill (maybe a company).

The only tank that could theoretically be a threat would be the sturmtiger.

Ma Deuce wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote:Some were disabled, none were destroyed in GW1 and none have ever been destroyed (or rendered ineffective) as a result of tank fire either enemy or friendly.

But some have been destroyed by other means (i.e, one was blown up recently when it ran over several mines stacked on top of each other). Are there any figures on how many M1's have become "permanant losses" over the years?

The Gulf War saw 18 M1's knocked out in some way or another with half returned to service, though a good portion of those losses where non-combat, generally from engine fires. There's a complex breakdown of the losses around somewhere.

The only other M1 losses in combat that I'm aware of are all in operation Iraqi Freedom. I haven't seen a breakdown of them, but IIRC the total of M1's and M2's knocked out, disabled or destroyed during the invasion was 44, with quite a few more since the occupation began. So far I'm fairly sure only two M1's were destroyed directly by enemy action, though several more where disabled and then destroyed to keep them from being captured, generally via having another M1 fire a sabot through the engine and then dropping grenades into the turret.

Thunderfire wrote:The only tank that could theoretically be a threat would be the sturmtiger.

Not by a long shot. If we count even theoretical threats then a Panzer I could threaten an M1 by shooting up the turret storage racks with tracer ammunition and setting them on fire.

Reading thie thread I come to one conclusion:

The M1A2 would have it's way with the WW2 tanks until it ran out of Ammo/fuel, at which point the WW2 tanks would simply have to rain death upon it until it died.

Nice. gotta love technology.

darthdavid wrote:After running outta ammo it could run around ramming enemies till it ran outtta gas.

As the originator of the phrase "Ram them until they give up.", I am informing you that I will expect the royalty payment shortly.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Thunderfire wrote:The only tank that could theoretically be a threat would be the sturmtiger.

Not by a long shot. If we count even theoretical threats then a Panzer I could threaten an M1 by shooting up the turret storage racks with tracer ammunition and setting them on fire.

Hmm the sturmtiger fires really big rounds incuding shape charge rounds. The kinetic impact of a 350kg round alone must be pretty nasty.

380mm SHAPED CHARGE!?!?!?!?!?!

what crack are da gemans on?

Anyway, no strumtiger is gonna hit with its piss poor low velocity gun before getting the sabot.



P.S. Given the power of 120mm APDS, wouldn't it overpenetrate thinly armored tanks while doing little damage? If one can encircle the tank (out of LOS), and deny it movement one can maybe assult it on foot with demo charges after rushing in close via tank....or something.....

SWPIGWANG wrote:380mm SHAPED CHARGE!?!?!?!?!?!

what crack are da gemans on?

Acutally as they went the strumtiger wasn't that terrible an idea (still a waste of Germany's limited resources though). It was meant for street fighting, where the ability to fire a huge explosive charge to a short range was of great value. The low velocity accuracy wouldn't have mattered too much in that role, and the rocket propulsion allowed for thin shell walls and a huge HE payload. The fact that the crew had to get out and use an onboard crane to reload was also not much of an issue for the job, since they could simply hide behind a street corner. The one major downside I see is the nose of the projectile might have been vulnerable to enemy fire.

Faced with a similar requirement for very powerful direct fire weapons to destroy bunkers in the Pacific the US Army adapted a self-propelled 240mm howitzer called the T92 HMC and also used the same modified M26 chassis to make the T93 GMC which carried an 8 inch gun. Both had been developed as normal SP artillery, but they where found to be quite capable of direct fire and production was beginning when the war ended to make them avliaibul for the invasion of Japan.

Anyway, no strumtiger is gonna hit with its piss poor low velocity gun before getting the sabot.

Indeed, and the weapon isn't even a gun; it's essentially a rocket propelled mortar bomb launcher.

P.S. Given the power of 120mm APDS, wouldn't it overpenetrate thinly armored tanks while doing little damage? If one can encircle the tank (out of LOS), and deny it movement one can maybe assult it on foot with demo charges after rushing in close via tank....or something.....

The sabot simply slicing clear through without doing damage might be issues against say and half track or M113 style vehicle when shot from the flank. However just about anything in the field in WW2 that can't be destroyed with the .50cal machine gun is going to be jam packed with its engine, fuel and ammo and a sabot would be quite fatal if. The later tanks of the war like Sherman's or Panthers with there nice thick fragment producing armor would be fucked.

And of course the M1 also can carry HEAT shells, which pack more then enough energy to destroy any tank in the war and work just fine against lightly armored targets.

I knew that the strumtiger is for street fighting, and I had lots of fun using in it in combat mission. (blasting two platoons to pieces in one shot is nice)

Hmm the sturmtiger fires really big rounds incuding shape charge rounds.

However shaped charge shells makes no sense, since the HE containt of something that size probably will mission kill any allied tank and there are few targets that require even more penetration considering the germans are on the defense.

uhhh.... While HE rounds are not made for antitank work, the KE from an 120mm probably means it have decent penetration in WW2 terms. Anyone with any idea how much?

The Sturmtiger's shaped charge was for taking out fortifications, not armor, and made perfect sense. The realities of the war situation overtook it's development is why it seems so out of place.

SWPIGWANG wrote:
uhhh.... While HE rounds are not made for antitank work, the KE from an 120mm probably means it have decent penetration in WW2 terms. Anyone with any idea how much?

Estimated penetration for the M256 gun firing M829A2 sabot ammunition is 750mm or RHA at 2,000 meters, and its thought to be able to pierce over twice that at very close range. Basically it can shoot through any armor plate ever manufactured. The US Army is also working on the M829E3 sabot round which will do even better.

Sea Skimmer wrote:The US Army is also working on the M829E3 sabot round which will do even better.

I thought the M829E3 was ready for procurement? .

BTW, I believe SWPIGWANG was referring to the penetration of 120mm HE rounds ( I know it's a moot point, since the Abrams doesn't carry any)

How would JS-2s and JS-3s do, i mean technically those are WWII tanks.... even though they didnt see combat.