Abrams vs StuG III G

[Yeetilini]

So, I was cruising along on Poland in a RB battle. I had just killed two Leo2Ks and was suddenly nailed in the front and my entire crew was gone. The culprit? A lonesome StuG.
My $4.3M tank was destroyed by a $35,000 antique. I'm not even mad, I'm very impressed.

[Stridswombat]

That be a mighty nice Tre Kronor symbol on that plane you got there. Developed by Bofors, ehh. Interesting.

[Blamite Delight]

Originally posted by AK Rowling:

I have a hard time seeing tanks get used that much given how easily missiles would be able to take one out. A tank can do little to defend against it and given the costs involved it just seems ineffecient.

Sure we still have them but look at how much the rate of advancement has slowed in thier development. They've yet to have to fight in a war against another similarly advanced nation on an equal footing aswell. Once that happens I don't think they will do to well.

Just doesn't seem very practical when you take modern artillery and missiles into the equation. Obviously boots on the ground will always be required I just think it will happen without large-scale tank support as we know it today. Lighter, more mobile and less expensive vehicles will see more use I think.

not really, the only thing that can pen a modern battle tank is if you're using a double tandem warhead.

[Stridswombat]

You don't always have to penetrate the armour to destroy or disable a vehicle.

Vehicles irl doesn't take 30 seconds to fix a broken track in combat.

[kamikazi21358]

No where near as impressive as a StuG killing an M1, but my recent goal in life was to kill an M1 Abrams with a T-55 or a T-62 (not M). In real life, unless something recent has happened which I haven’t heard of, the M1 Abrams has a reputation for never being knocked out by an enemy tank in combat. It’s been knocked out by RPGs, friendly fire, own crew scuttling, damaged but not destroyed, etc., but as far at it is known, it has never been officially been knocked out by an enemy tank’s fire (according to every source I found at least).
Most of the tanks though it fought were exported T-55s, T-62s, and T-72s, mostly in the Middle East. So I wanted to see how hard it was at least in War Thunder Simulator Battles it was to kill a M1 with a T-62.
It only took me like 4 matches in SB, but if you can get the first shot off it’s definatly possble.




Also, I heard before it is possible to kill the M1 Abrams from the front with a Sturmpanzer IV.

[Stridswombat]

It's also never faced a modern enemy tank in combat. Kind of easy to not get knocked out when you're facing vehicles 30+ years older with much weaker cannons.

They have however been knocked out by friendly fire from its own cannons multiple times. Basically the armour held out when facing outdated tanks from smaller, less developed countries but once it gets hit by a modern tank gun, its own in this case, it can't withstand it.

[kamikazi21358]

Originally posted by AK Rowling:

You don't always have to penetrate the armour to destroy or disable a vehicle.

Vehicles irl doesn't take 30 seconds to fix a broken track in combat.

Another thing I wish they could add is crew stunning, injury, or death by cuncussive forces. From real tankers accounts, when a shell hits a tank, even a non penetrating AP or HEAT shell, the shear noise from the impact (expecially in lighter armored vehicles) is cuncussive enough to stun the crew even for a couple seconds from such an impact from a 900-1800 m/s shell slamming into the armor; I thought it would be cool if in some tanks, depending on how thick/thin the armor is where it hit and the size of the crew compartment, etc., if a large shell or a high vilocity shell hit and bounced off the front (shells scraping the side and hitting tracks and stuff don’t count), or expecially if the shell penetrates, the crew in the tank (or the surviving crew if it pens) could be stunned for a second or two, where reloading and turret traverse, driving if it hit the hull, would stop for those 2 seconds. ( a lot of AB and RB players might not like this, so it could just be a RB and SB, or just an SB mechanic). There could also be crew skills added too that decrease the likelyhood of getting stunned (like the caliber and/or vilocity would have to go higher I get stunned, the heavier the vehicle the less likely, etc.) and a crewskill to decrease the amount of time being stunned (which could only be like 2-3 seconds stock, anymore would be too annoying for the players).

Also large caliber HE shells often kill crew from spalling and shear concussive power, for example the SU-152 was ordered to shoot tanks until their turrets blew off, because in Kursk they found out that the shear cuncussive force of the 152mm HE shell often killed the crew inside the tank, dispite doing minimal damage to the outside of the tank. (They face order because they also found out they just repaired the inside and some minor things and recrewed the tanks, and they would be back on the frontline the next day.)

[kamikazi21358]

Originally posted by AK Rowling:

It's also never faced a modern enemy tank in combat. Kind of easy to not get knocked out when you're facing vehicles 30+ years older with much weaker cannons.

They have however been knocked out by friendly fire from its own cannons multiple times. Basically the armour held out when facing outdated tanks from smaller, less developed countries but once it gets hit by a modern tank gun, its own in this case, it can't withstand it.

Yeah that was the point of the T-62 gameplay: the main reason I figured is the M1 never fought T-80s and T-90s; but I wanted to see if the tanks that it did historically face, mainly outdated Soviet vehicles used by Middle Eastern countries, did actually have a chance at killing the M1, it just tactics and stuff used was effective enough to use the Abrams to it’s full effectiveness and prevent casualties; basically to prove that the tank was undoubtly good, but the tank itself wasn’t the only reason for never having tank in tank casualties, that it was in fact possible to kill it with the opponents that it historically faced in conflicts like Desert Storm, Iraq, etc.

[Stridswombat]

Do you know how well, if at all, spalling it modeled in the game? Because realistically any sufficiently high caliber HE (75mm and above) should cause spalling to shrapnel into the fighting compartment whether it penetrates or not. A lot of the time though a non-penetration with HE does either nothing or only damages external modules. Sometimes a small amount of shrapnel gets through if its borderline whether the HE shell was able to pen or not, although I'm not sure if this is the game calculating that some of the shrapnel from the HE shell penetrated or if its supposed to be spalling.

I once succesfully managed to kill another Sherman using a Shermans 105mm HE shell through its side armour. The HE failed to pen but a small piece of shrapnel got through somehow and hit the ammo rack on the edge of his hull and detonated it.

But yeah I agree with you that HE is way too weak as long as spalling doesn't seem to be simulated.

[kamikazi21358]

Originally posted by AK Rowling:

Do you know how well, if at all, spalling it modeled in the game? Because realistically any sufficiently high caliber HE (75mm and above) should cause spalling to shrapnel into the fighting compartment whether it penetrates or not. A lot of the time though a non-penetration with HE does either nothing or only damages external modules. Sometimes a small amount of shrapnel gets through if its borderline whether the HE shell was able to pen or not, although I'm not sure if this is the game calculating that some of the shrapnel from the HE shell penetrated or if its supposed to be spalling.

I once succesfully managed to kill another Sherman using a Shermans 105mm HE shell through its side armour. The HE failed to pen but a small piece of shrapnel got through somehow and hit the ammo rack on the edge of his hull and detonated it.

But yeah I agree with you that HE is way too weak as long as spalling doesn't seem to be simulated.

Yes I know it is modeled, but yes it is weak and mostly irrelevant. Usually it takes more than the spalling to kill the tank; and 80% of the time the spalling is from penetrating shots and not non-penetrating from my experience.

I doubt it will be popular among AB and most RB players, but I do still like my cuncussive forces damages and crew stunning idea.

I haven’t played it in years and years, but I heard that World of Tanks might have added crew stunning mechanic for high caliber HE shells? But I’m not sure. And please forgive me for mentioning that game.

[Tankfriend]

Originally posted by Piggy:

Originally posted by Tankfriend:

All I can find implies impact. Any sources on these non-impact javelins?

The BILL 2 ATGM and the javelins as well as many other portable ATGM weapons have this top attack capability. This is a video showing you how lethal it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJhqQquIL_U

Any footage for the actual javelin? No doubt many ATGMs have a top attack mode these days, *but* the warhead concept in the BILL works via explosively formed penetrator, and not via a conventional HEAT warhead. The base idea behind it is basically the same, but the actual workings are a bit different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator

Also compare, for example, the different variants of the TOW, where some work via HEAT, and others via EFP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-71_TOW#2011:_Syrian_Civil_War

Originally posted by kamikazi21358:

I haven’t played it in years and years, but I heard that World of Tanks might have added crew stunning mechanic for high caliber HE shells? But I’m not sure. And please forgive me for mentioning that game.

They do have a stun mechanic, but only for artillery shells. It's not an actual complete stun, though - it just puts a massive debuff on your crew, so nothing really works well for a few seconds.

[RedSector73]

Originally posted by AK Rowling:

Do you know how well, if at all, spalling it modeled in the game? Because realistically any sufficiently high caliber HE (75mm and above) should cause spalling to shrapnel into the fighting compartment whether it penetrates or not. A lot of the time though a non-penetration with HE does either nothing or only damages external modules. Sometimes a small amount of shrapnel gets through if its borderline whether the HE shell was able to pen or not, although I'm not sure if this is the game calculating that some of the shrapnel from the HE shell penetrated or if its supposed to be spalling.

I once succesfully managed to kill another Sherman using a Shermans 105mm HE shell through its side armour. The HE failed to pen but a small piece of shrapnel got through somehow and hit the ammo rack on the edge of his hull and detonated it.

But yeah I agree with you that HE is way too weak as long as spalling doesn't seem to be simulated.

Based on what information does 75mm HE cause spalling ?

[Stridswombat]

Any HE with enough concussive force will cause spalling. It just depends on the thickness of the armour plate, the type of armour and the quality. For example if it's riveted and potentially even cast you don't even need HE to cause spalling, AP will do.

Just comes down to the force of the impact and 75mm is just the smallest caliber worth mentioning.

[Stridswombat]

The rivets themselves are considered spalling when they do break off, however and have the same effect. Turning the tanks own armour into shrapnel that can injure crew or damage the internals of the fighting compartment.

[RedSector73]

I give it one thing your good for a laugh AK. Thanks for that.

[Stridswombat]

You've let to say anything to disprove what I've said but if that's all you're capable of sure.