M1A1 Abrams vs MAUS

[Nipah]

Who would win?

Pret sure the MAUS would have a chance of penning the M1A1 Abrams
If it was in the right angle and position?

[Schnittertm]

Messaggio originale di Ki'agh:

Messaggio originale di Tankfriend:

Depending on how you measure it, it has either the highest or second highest density, with iridium being the other contender.
Lead - 11.34 g/cm³
Uranium - 19.05 g/cm³
Tungsten - 19.25 g/cm³
Osmium - 22.61 g/cm³

But density alone doesn't automatically mean that a material makes a good penetrator, because you obviously also have to take into account how much it costs you, if there's other dangers involved with it, how far you can possibly develop the material with alloys and so on.

ofc, hardness also come into it, no point having a really heavy penetrator if it gets squashed or deformed easily.

Yep, lead has very poor hardness, it can usually, at room temperature, be dented by human finger nails, despite its density. It also has a very low melting point of around 327° C, whereas Uranium starts to melt at 1132° C and Tungsten at over 3400° C, meaning the latter two material can much better withstand the heat of the impact without deforming.

Now, Uranium, especially depleted Uranium, is much cheaper in cost than Tungsten, while having a similar density and hardness, yet there are still armies, like the German Army, that use Tungsten (or rather Tungsten-Carbide) penetrators. That is done because each time a penetrator hits it will also create a cloud of aerosol particles of its own material and Urianium is much more poisionous than Tungsten.

Messaggio originale di Felix V-M:

Messaggio originale di 彡Tragopan:

*Ahem*
Most late Nazi tanks were WAY ahead of their time.
You need to do some reading.
A MAUS as you may know, it's pretty beast.

And by the evidence it can :D

A wehraboo I see.

The MAUS was the concept, of using the same steel that was used on all other tanks and then just using more of it - that's not how modern day protection functions because it's horribly inefficient. I'd also like to point out how silly it is to think that a concept from the 40s would ever outclass anything 70 years later. This isn't an anime. No one can plan for 70 years of technological advancement and it has never in human history occurred that something was created to which an answer was not developed within 5 to 10 years, even during the feudal medieval period.

I'll stick with my Challenger II with either APFSDS ammunition or HESH ammunition, the MAUS will last less than ten minutes.
To speak in terms you might understand as they would seem more similar to War Thunder.

Most tanks in this game have an effective armour penetration of about 300mm at max tier.

The Challenger 2's L30A1 120mm Rifled Gun can fire APFSDS shells with an effective penetration of above 1000mm, in short, it can't be stopped by outdated equipment and requires the more dense, hard, angled reactive modern armour that is often classified due to its capabilities, such as defeating 8 RPG shots like a Challenger II back in Iraq in 2003.

And that's not even the topic of the thread to be honest, the M1 Abrams' gun is technically far more effective at using armour piercing ammunition due to the lack of rifling and increased length of the barrel, I'm not sure on the numbers so I won't claim anything but I'd be willing to wager that it has over 1200mm of effective penetration when used against steel, hardened steel & to some extent even modern day armour.

Not to mention, the Maus would be very taxing on fuel, have very little manueverability compared to a 60mph Main Battle Tank and would have a much slower turret & hull rotation rate, it's outclassed in every single possible way and the main gun on the MAUS would do very little as well.

Ah, you don't need to counter him with a British tank, just use a German Leopard 2A4 or better, it will do the job just as well.

For what its worth, the Maus and many of the other paper projects were ill conceived ideas, just like Hitlers idea of making the Me-262 into a fighter bomber and such. They should have worked on improving the Panther line sooner and faster and to implement more streamlined production for them. That would have helped more than building the Maus and working on many of those other projects.

[Tankfriend]

Messaggio originale di 彡Tragopan:

What if the MAUS used HEAT rounds againest M1A1 Abrams side armor?

If it's firing a HEAT shell of its own WW2-era timeframe, it would be basically useless. The modern HEAT shells that an M1 or contemporary main battle tank are designed to withstand are leaps and bounds beyond the performance of those because of various technological developments that only appeared after WW2.

If it's somehow firing a modern HEAT shell designed for its gun, who knows. The 128mm caliber of the Maus' gun would give it more potential firepower than current-day main battle tanks (the Soviet/Russian MBTs use "only" 125mm), while the fact that the gun is rifled would mean less firepower with HEAT shells, unless those shells are spin-neutralized like the French OBUS G shell.

Messaggio originale di Schnittertm:

Now, Uranium, especially depleted Uranium, is much cheaper in cost than Tungsten, while having a similar density and hardness, yet there are still armies, like the German Army, that use Tungsten (or rather Tungsten-Carbide) penetrators. That is done because each time a penetrator hits it will also create a cloud of aerosol particles of its own material and Urianium is much more poisionous than Tungsten.

Whether or not tungsten-carbide really is that much less dangerous is up for debate. TC alloys that include other materials like cobalt are under suspicion of being seriously carcinogenic (i.e. causing cancer).

[PyroPaul]

Messaggio originale di 彡Tragopan:

What if the MAUS used HEAT rounds againest M1A1 Abrams side armor?

It would do literally nothing.

The biggest and most commonly encountered threat to the M1a1 Abrams isn't tank fired munitions, but instead sholder fired HEAT munitions from ground infantry.

As such, many changes in the M1 series have included making the tank much more resilant to HEAT munitions, to the point that it has an almost full coverage effective-thickness of ~1200mm against HEAT specifically.

Messaggio originale di Felix V-M:

Anyone who thinks a WWII tank can knock out a third generation main battle tank really needs to do some revision.

Modern day armour focuses on density (meaning shells cannot penetrate due to velocity+mass being <less than the density of the metal composites & alloys covering the tank, not to mention reactive armour & speed, there's a pretty high chance due to gyro-stabilizers that almost all tanks from the modern era will be able to engage and destroy any ww2 tank without incident.

Not to mention, modern day cannons have an average effective penetration of usually above 800mm of effective armour, often even far greater especially with SABOT & HESH shells.

Not really...

The idea that 3rd generation tanks are immune to older munitions is an illusion. The high density armor which you speak of is designed specifically to protect the tank against high density penetrators (Tungsten/DU penetrators) as it shatters the tip and defuses the energy greatly.

But what happens against an APC shell? The higher degree of energy and larger impact surface simply overwhelms the protective layers as the armor is intended to stop or defuse point penetrations, not to deflect or defend against high energy impacts.

Truthfully, what really makes modern tanks seem 'nigh invunerable' is their speed and fire control systems, much like you mentioned. They are commonly capable of out manuvering and rapidly engaging point targets with a high degree of accurcy with out recieving much in the way of return fire.


Maus vs Abrams in a slugfest?
we don't know... there isn't any real data of the Abrams' armor ever being engaged by APCBC style ammunition. And because the most common threat tanks face are infantry based HEAT munitions which forced them to defend specifically against that - it is entirely possible that it's protection against full caliber slugs is entirely minimal.

Maus vs Abrams in a standard engagement?
Abrams hands down... hell, the crew would be dead before they even knew an enemy tank was in area as they take a HEAT or Sabot round dead center from a shot fired 2 miles away...

[Nipah]

Messaggio originale di Pyro Paul:

Messaggio originale di 彡Tragopan:

What if the MAUS used HEAT rounds againest M1A1 Abrams side armor?

It would do literally nothing.

The biggest and most commonly encountered threat to the M1a1 Abrams isn't tank fired munitions, but instead sholder fired HEAT munitions from ground infantry.

As such, many changes in the M1 series have included making the tank much more resilant to HEAT munitions, to the point that it has an almost full coverage effective-thickness of ~1200mm against HEAT specifically.

Messaggio originale di Felix V-M:

Anyone who thinks a WWII tank can knock out a third generation main battle tank really needs to do some revision.

Modern day armour focuses on density (meaning shells cannot penetrate due to velocity+mass being <less than the density of the metal composites & alloys covering the tank, not to mention reactive armour & speed, there's a pretty high chance due to gyro-stabilizers that almost all tanks from the modern era will be able to engage and destroy any ww2 tank without incident.

Not to mention, modern day cannons have an average effective penetration of usually above 800mm of effective armour, often even far greater especially with SABOT & HESH shells.

Not really...

The idea that 3rd generation tanks are immune to older munitions is an illusion. The high density armor which you speak of is designed specifically to protect the tank against high density penetrators (Tungsten/DU penetrators) as it shatters the tip and defuses the energy greatly.

But what happens against an APC shell? The higher degree of energy and larger impact surface simply overwhelms the protective layers as the armor is intended to stop or defuse point penetrations, not to deflect or defend against high energy impacts.

Truthfully, what really makes modern tanks seem 'nigh invunerable' is their speed and fire control systems, much like you mentioned. They are commonly capable of out manuvering and rapidly engaging point targets with a high degree of accurcy with out recieving much in the way of return fire.


Maus vs Abrams in a slugfest?
we don't know... there isn't any real data of the Abrams' armor ever being engaged by APCBC style ammunition. And because the most common threat tanks face are infantry based HEAT munitions which forced them to defend specifically against that - it is entirely possible that it's protection against full caliber slugs is entirely minimal.

Maus vs Abrams in a standard engagement?
Abrams hands down... hell, the crew would be dead before they even knew an enemy tank was in area as they take a HEAT or Sabot round dead center from a shot fired 2 miles away...

I like this guy!

He is seeing what I am seeing here.

Except he is alot smarter >~< And I am not.

But i'm still correct..er..in a way!

[Schnittertm]

Messaggio originale di Pyro Paul:

Not really...

The idea that 3rd generation tanks are immune to older munitions is an illusion. The high density armor which you speak of is designed specifically to protect the tank against high density penetrators (Tungsten/DU penetrators) as it shatters the tip and defuses the energy greatly.

But what happens against an APC shell? The higher degree of energy and larger impact surface simply overwhelms the protective layers as the armor is intended to stop or defuse point penetrations, not to deflect or defend against high energy impacts.

So, you think a type of armor that will shatter the high density point of a tungsten/DU penetrator will not shatter an APCBC round with a much softer material that would also have to go through several layers of high density materials? You made a comparison between knife resistant armor and bullet resistant armor and also mentioned military combat armor. I think modern tank armor can be more described as modern combat armor with armor plates in them, therefore protecting against knifes and bullets at the same time.

You think that a shell that has a higher kinetic energy but spreads this energy over a larger area is better? The comparison between the kinetic energies of both types of ammunition is just one factor, the other is, that AP round spread this energy over a large area and therefore lose in penetration, whereas an APFSDS concentrates it in a single, hard point to punch through. APCBC shells also have a different problem, because of the cavity holding the explosive filler they are not as stable on penetration as modern dart type shells and would more likely shatter on the outside of the armor. With several shots you might damage the ceramic plates enough to get through, but you wouldn't get a penetration and any outside damage would be caught by the spall liners inside.

I don't believe that APCBC has just gone out of style and will come back, it has gone out of style because it is just not useful. If it were useful it would be adapted for modern tank use and modern tanks wouldn't fire HEAT or APFSDS to combat each other, but any type of full caliber APHE again. What you are arguing seems to me more like saying that old lead type musket shots might become more popular again, because they might defeat modern body armor more easily.


I'd also like to know more about those Iraqi M1's defeated by T-55's and T-62's, couldn't find much on that. I especially would like to know if there is any report on the engagements themselves and the engagement parameters (range, angle, etc.) or if they were just defeated because the crews bailed when they shouldn't.

I did find, however, a report on Janes that several Iraqi M1's were taken out by Russian made 9M133 Kornet ATGM's.

[Kay]

Messaggio originale di Schnittertm:

Messaggio originale di Pyro Paul:

Not really...

The idea that 3rd generation tanks are immune to older munitions is an illusion. The high density armor which you speak of is designed specifically to protect the tank against high density penetrators (Tungsten/DU penetrators) as it shatters the tip and defuses the energy greatly.

But what happens against an APC shell? The higher degree of energy and larger impact surface simply overwhelms the protective layers as the armor is intended to stop or defuse point penetrations, not to deflect or defend against high energy impacts.

So, you think a type of armor that will shatter the high density point of a tungsten/DU penetrator will not shatter an APCBC round with a much softer material that would also have to go through several layers of high density materials? You made a comparison between knife resistant armor and bullet resistant armor and also mentioned military combat armor. I think modern tank armor can be more described as modern combat armor with armor plates in them, therefore protecting against knifes and bullets at the same time.

You think that a shell that has a higher kinetic energy but spreads this energy over a larger area is better? The comparison between the kinetic energies of both types of ammunition is just one factor, the other is, that AP round spread this energy over a large area and therefore lose in penetration, whereas an APFSDS concentrates it in a single, hard point to punch through. APCBC shells also have a different problem, because of the cavity holding the explosive filler they are not as stable on penetration as modern dart type shells and would more likely shatter on the outside of the armor. With several shots you might damage the ceramic plates enough to get through, but you wouldn't get a penetration and any outside damage would be caught by the spall liners inside.

I don't believe that APCBC has just gone out of style and will come back, it has gone out of style because it is just not useful. If it were useful it would be adapted for modern tank use and modern tanks wouldn't fire HEAT or APFSDS to combat each other, but any type of full caliber APHE again. What you are arguing seems to me more like saying that old lead type musket shots might become more popular again, because they might defeat modern body armor more easily.


I'd also like to know more about those Iraqi M1's defeated by T-55's and T-62's, couldn't find much on that. I especially would like to know if there is any report on the engagements themselves and the engagement parameters (range, angle, etc.) or if they were just defeated because the crews bailed when they shouldn't.

I did find, however, a report on Janes that several Iraqi M1's were taken out by Russian made 9M133 Kornet ATGM's.

BTW, the knife/bullet thing in this circumstance, is better compared to a bullet/hammer. Milspec combat armor will not protect against a hammer. and softer materials do not shatter, shattering is something harder materials do, softer ones would deform instead. and crossbows do defeat modern bulletproof armor relatively easily. APCBC do not have explosive fillers. in all likelyness, one shot would destoy the integrity of the armor making follow-up shots more likely to penetrate.
It's just a theory, and modern tanks don't tend to fight their equals, rather they fight outdated tanks using outdated tech and APFSDS shells.

[Tankfriend]

Messaggio originale di Ki'agh:

APCBC do not have explosive fillers.

They do. The Pzgr. 39 you're used to from the game is just one example. Most of the time, people just shorten the designation to APCBC, when it should, in fact, be APCBC-HE-T.

in all likelyness, one shot would destoy the integrity of the armor making follow-up shots more likely to penetrate.

Possible, but nobody knows how likely that is.

[JtDarth]

Messaggio originale di Felix V-M:

Messaggio originale di Schnittertm:

Ah, you don't need to counter him with a British tank, just use a German Leopard 2A4 or better, it will do the job just as well.

For what its worth, the Maus and many of the other paper projects were ill conceived ideas, just like Hitlers idea of making the Me-262 into a fighter bomber and such. They should have worked on improving the Panther line sooner and faster and to implement more streamlined production for them. That would have helped more than building the Maus and working on many of those other projects.

Pretty much. Would have made more sense to counter with the Leopard, I'm British however and the OP is an Aussie so it seemed appropriate.

Ironically, Hitler's wunderwaffen & actually cost him the war. The Tiger for example, for as fearsome as its reputation became post-ww2, was never a considerable threat, even with its high kills/deaths ratio it was still outclassed by almost every single British heavy & medium tank battalion during WWII.

That last part can be debated to death to be honest, whether or not the German idea of experimentation was worthwhile or not and whether it could have led to usable tactics but the subject of this thread, whether a 70 year old concept could defeat any proven modern day, third generation main battle tank, is absolutely ridiculous.

If the Tiger was outclassed by every british tank battalion, then why did the brits have to put new tanks out when the Tiger appeared? They had to rush 17pdr guns out to the field and mount them on towed platforms intended for other guns because they had no other tanks ready for using them. Even their most successful immediate response, the sherman firefly, was a modification of a foreign tank. The British didn't really hit their stride with regards to tanks until 1944. Before that point they didn't really make anything I'd deem exceptional. They made vehicles copying the designs and ideologies of the Americans, Soviets, and even the Germans. It wasn't until the Comet appeared that they truly had something to call their own that excelled.

[Kay]

Messaggio originale di Tankfriend:

Messaggio originale di Ki'agh:

APCBC do not have explosive fillers.

They do. The Pzgr. 39 you're used to from the game is just one example. Most of the time, people just shorten the designation to APCBC, when it should, in fact, be APCBC-HE-T.

in all likelyness, one shot would destoy the integrity of the armor making follow-up shots more likely to penetrate.

Possible, but nobody knows how likely that is.

This is what I meant, they are not APCBC rounds but APCBC-HE (not sure about the tracer part though, didn't know that) I'm sorry about being really picky with this stuff.

It's exactly the point I am trying to make, without trying it out, no-one knows how likely it is, or even if a penetrating hit is required with a maus shell.

[LegendaryPatMan]

An M1A1 Abrams would demolish any tank made before 1980 with no problems and an M1A2 Abrams would demolish anyhting up to ultra modern tanks like a K2 Black Panther, T14 or Leo 2 A7

[Kay]

Messaggio originale di LegendaryPatMan:

An M1A1 Abrams would demolish any tank made before 1980 with no problems and an M1A2 Abrams would demolish anyhting up to ultra modern tanks like a K2 Black Panther, T14 or Leo 2 A7

um, no. M1A2 Abrams would meet a challenger 2 from far away and explode. They are mor accurate, better protected and don't drink fuel as fast. and other modern MBTs are probably a good match with the Abrams, or close enough.

[JtDarth]

Messaggio originale di Felix V-M:

Messaggio originale di DarthNachoz:

If the Tiger was outclassed by every british tank battalion, then why did the brits have to put new tanks out when the Tiger appeared? They had to rush 17pdr guns out to the field and mount them on towed platforms intended for other guns because they had no other tanks ready for using them. Even their most successful immediate response, the sherman firefly, was a modification of a foreign tank. The British didn't really hit their stride with regards to tanks until 1944. Before that point they didn't really make anything I'd deem exceptional. They made vehicles copying the designs and ideologies of the Americans, Soviets, and even the Germans. It wasn't until the Comet appeared that they truly had something to call their own that excelled.

Reading comprehension. You lack it.

I was speaking from a post-war perspective looking at kills, deaths and tanks disabled/destroyed, in terms of looking at it from a scoreboard, in the grand scheme of things the Tiger did very little other than inflict large losses compared to their numbers but still no where near enough to be considered an actual threat to the overall plans.

On that note, the only tanks the Germans fielded that posed a threat to the British tank doctrine were the Tiger I, II and the Panther, Pz IV was still an equal to the Cromwell unless modified for heavier armour & longer gun then it was more equivilant to the Churchill Mk VIII, Pz III was inferior to the Cromwell.

Also, the Matilda II was practically invulnerable to the 88mm throughout 1940 - 1943, angled well and facing front armour toward a Tiger they could get within 600m or so before suffering penetrations.

I don't lack reading comprehension, nowhere in your post did you state anything regarding looking at it's overall effect. You stated it was outclassed by british tank divisions, and did not specify that you meant overall use, not combat performance.
Irregardless, the fact that the Tiger accounted for as many kills as it did, despite the low numbers and frequent breakdowns, is proof enough that it was better than it's foreign equivalents at time of introduction.
That said, if the Tiger had been produced in adequate numbers, IE unhindered by the carpet bombing of industrial cities by the allies, that situation may well have changed.
The matilda 2, was incapable of penetrating a Tiger reliably until at closer ranges than what the Tiger had to be, falling prey to the same pitfalls as most british 'infantry' tanks. That is to say, big, slow, and with relatively weak guns for their time.

British tank doctrine (from what I can find) was to use infantry and associated tanks to bust a hole in the defensive line, and then send the faster tanks through to wreak havoc behind the enemy defensive line, keeping attention away from the hole in the defenses and tying up german AFVs by making them play Wil. E Coyote. Keeping that in mind, simply having more StuGG available to form a second line would defeat british tank doctrine.
Also, keep in mind, that the majority of the british armored forces, throughout world war 2, wer e lend-lease m10s and m4s.

[Tankfriend]

Messaggio originale di Felix V-M:

Also, the Matilda II was practically invulnerable to the 88mm throughout 1940 - 1943, angled well and facing front armour toward a Tiger they could get within 600m or so before suffering penetrations.

That's news to me. The Matilda II had what, ~80mm maximum armour thickness? And most of it was vertical.

Meanwhile, the 88mm gun still punched through ~83mm at 30° at 2000m. Sounds a bit hard to believe that it couldn't take out a Matilda II until 600m. O.o

[JtDarth]

Messaggio originale di Tankfriend:

Messaggio originale di Felix V-M:

Also, the Matilda II was practically invulnerable to the 88mm throughout 1940 - 1943, angled well and facing front armour toward a Tiger they could get within 600m or so before suffering penetrations.

That's news to me. The Matilda II had what, ~80mm maximum armour thickness? And most of it was vertical.

Meanwhile, the 88mm gun still punched through ~83mm at 30° at 2000m. Sounds a bit hard to believe that it couldn't take out a Matilda II until 600m. O.o

Note his statement of 'angled well and front facing'. I could see that making them difficult for a tiger to pen.

[Tankfriend]

Maybe if you get exceedingly lucky. The problem with angling the Matilda is that its frontal armour is a U-shape like on the IS-1 or IS-2, so angling doesn't help much. And the circular turret can't really be angled, either.