jamesroe16 Posted January 11, 2004 Share Posted January 11, 2004 What about in the first World War. lol...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1st Shirt Posted January 11, 2004 Share Posted January 11, 2004 Originally posted by Kitty: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives: sgtgoody is OpFor, IIRC AAAAAA! Another Iraqi!!!! Can you please translate that to English for me? Thanks. =) Kitty </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 A WWII gun would probably be better off shooting HE at modern tanks. If all the external equipment is destroyed, the modern tank is most likely less combat capable than the WWII tank because the WWII crew is much better trained in using optical sights and so on. So a quick arty strike at the modern tank should probably do the trick. Just a thought... Dschugaschwili 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 Modern armour is pretty much proof against any WWII arty, even DF. If it were that easy to incapacitate a modern AFV, the Iraqi resistance would be doing it. For an example, in the Balkans the smallest calibre AT weapon that would damage the sights on a T72 was a 20mm AMR (.50cal BMG wouldn't touch it) Another one: in the late 1950s, a firing test against the Conqueror hy gun tank led to the conclusion that 120mm HE (equivalent to 122mm) was largely ineffective. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirReal Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: Modern armour is pretty much proof against any WWII arty, even DF. If it were that easy to incapacitate a modern AFV, the Iraqi resistance would be doing it. Interesting, can you point to any sources that verifies this? I was under the impression that 150mm+ arty could stop armor (knocking the tracks off it, I would guess). Of course, if one tried to do that against a modern army tank, some CB fire would be on it's way very quickly, so it might not be a viable option even if does work. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 The 20mm thing I read somewhere, I don't recall where. The firing trials report is a WO document from the Public Records office. (WO 194 375) It covered a number of attacks against a Conqueror Mk1, from small arms to 155mm airburst, through 20pdr and 5.25" AP. It also used 120mm HE vs. front and sides. (side armour ~51mm, glacis 130mm@60 degrees). Apart from blowing a hatch open (the design was subsequently fixed), the HE had no effect Air bursting fragments from 155mm were able to penetrate top hatches, so they upgraded them to 31mm One can only assume that tank designers these days know about this sort of thing. The Conqueror served from ~1955 to ~1965 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq): (snip) I've fought against the M1 and yes it is a bitch and a half to kill but it can be killed, even by a lowly BMP. So...how did you like your stint in the Iraqi army? (later) AAAAhhhnevermind. Teaches me to only read through half the postings...got beaten to the punch line. [ January 12, 2004, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: gunnergoz ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.