安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
You really don't know that.
Armor is basically 99% classified.
But i do know their is some uranium and chemicals in there..
But eh, i'm still saying it's possible for the MAUS to pen the vents at the back
(Who the ♥♥♥♥ put those vents there?)
But yeah
As far as I know the Depleted uranium armor is only on the M1A2, The M1A1 Just has composit armor which is tough as all get out anyway.
Anyway the armor IS classified but there are some ballpark estimates on the effective thickness verus various types of impacts The lowest being in the 400 mm range for Kinetic energy projectiles (your typical armor piercing shell)
All armored vehicles, Hell all decently designed Cars have a thick metal plate between the engine compartment and crew compartment. For a car its to prevent your engine from meeting your lower body in the case of a head on collision. In a combat vehicle its designed to keep the crew alive in case the engine explodes for some strange reason. Assuming the Maus's shell wasnet stopped by the turbine engine itself it would have to punch trhough that engine block with what little remining kinetic force it has left.
As for the vents...
The reason for the vents is beacuse the engine eneds to breath and it needs a lot more air than the crew. The whole design of the abrams is all about destroying anything that can destroy you before it ever gets the chance (a rather common theme in modern warfare)
If you can reasonably guarantee that the rear of your tank will never get shot then it stands to reason to focus all of your vunerabilitys there and build everything else around preventing them from being exploited.
Yes its basicly Otacon giving Rex a "caracter flaw."
Why the rear and not on top like the days of old? Well i can guess that with the advancement of aviation, Aircraft are more of a threat than other tanks so the upper hull cant be paper thin and full of holes anymore.
Damit Sam! Why did you put the reset button OUTSIDE of the tank!
I've already given up on you just by reading that first sentence.
Eh, you don't know that either. Maybe the M1A1 Does have deplted uranium armor?
(I'm sorry, but maybe it was in expieremental stages?)
And yeah, in War Thunder. Most vents have to placed somewhere and they're mostly on the top. But having vents on the top is better than having vents at the BACK, but why not have the vents placed on the bottom of the tank? Sure, if it hits a mine. Then it's going to aboslutely get rekt. But that is THEIR fault for not using the advanced mine-finding technology for doing that.
But that's just my opinion. I have no good evidence to backup my statement that it'll work.
And i agree with everything else you said too.
http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/3/30/M1A1_HA_sideLOS.jpg
That's an (HA), which has more armour than a standard M1A1.
Of course that's just as much guesswork or estimates as everyone else has been doing here, but it does point out that people have very overexaggerated expectations of the side armours of modern tanks.
Going by those numbers above, the engine area is a guaranteed penetration, and even the crew compartment is vulnerable from the side, even if you allow for less penetration power for the Maus because of outdated ammunition design and poorer material quality when making that ammunition.
As far as penetration, into the rear or potentially something like the turret ring would pen.
The M1a1 Abrams has a complex composite armor of ceramic, steel, rubber, and kevlar plates to provide it protection against all forms of AT weaponry. But that also means that the Armor itself has a sort of variable thickness depending on what hits it...
For instance - the front plate of the Abrams Turret is said to provide +1000 mm of thickness against HEAT type munitions, but only ~700 verses KE penetrator type weapons.
but it is unsure what standard AP Shot would do against these tanks as it's impact type is a completely different dynamic and might cause unexpected damage to the tank which it wasn't really designed to protect against.
the 128mm shell might very well cause catastrophic damage as a shot as solid as the PzGr 43 is, it possibly could shatter the ceramic plates and be too much for the remaining Kevlar and Steel plates to protect against.
but that's the way of progress... The more advanced we get, the more and more simplistic things prove to be better.
The armor would easily withstand WWII shells. It was designed to survive direct hits from depleated uranium and sabod discarding anti tank rounds. Sorry it's not even a contest.
Oh and those rear vents are outside of the armor shell of the M1A1.
Think how modern anti tank weapons work, like the javelin. They don't even try to penetrate the sides of the tank, they attack from directly above.
Well here is where that scenerio goes down the toilet.
1st The MAUS was never in Afghanistan or used by the Soviets during their invasion of that country. The MAUS was also never used in combat since it was still in the prototype development phase.
2nd tanks never operate on their own, that's just stupid. Any tank on the ground will have infantry, air, and other tank support close by.
3rd Afghanistan dosen't really have suburbs, most cities like Kabul were blasted back to the stone age during the Soviet invasion and the 30 years of Taliban stagnation. Most of the fighting during the recent Afghan war was also fought in the country or mountians or the odd farming compound. Any fighting in urban areas usually invovled infantry and AIFV's (Armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicles) such as the LAV 3 or Bradly. The rason is that those vechiles are faster and urban warfare is better suited for them rather then a 70 or 80 tonne tank that can't fit in an alley or side street.
4. The MAUS is a big slow moving tank that would make far more noise and produce more smoke from its exhaust then the M1A1. An infared camera would spot it in a heartbeat. Not to mention with the use of satellites and drones it would be spotted in the air long before it could sneak up for that well placed shot. And even if it could sneak up the round from that tank might not have the power to actually destroy an M1A1 anyway.
And before you respond with "but what about this scenerio where it blah blah blah ...." I can tell you from first hand experience being around tanks that there is no chance that something from WW2 would stand a chance against a modern main battle tank. Even tanks such as the T-72 that Iraq used during the first Gulf war which are far more advanced then the MAUS didn't stand a chance. Look up the battle of 73 Easting where 9 M1A1 tanks and about 12 Bradly's faced a brigade of Republican Guard and wiped them out in less then half an hour without taking a single casulty.