login   |    register
Armor/AFV: Modern Armor
Modern armor in general.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Can "88" penetrate modern tanks ?
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 20, 2020 - 11:07 AM UTC
The 88 L71 still outperformed 122 mm armed JS 1's and 2's at the end of the war.
Dinocamo
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: August 26, 2017
KitMaker: 90 posts
Armorama: 88 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 20, 2020 - 12:49 PM UTC
IF the long 88mm fires against bare base modern armor, as the other already said, it could get through the hull and the turret rear, and possibly the hull sides depending on vehicles.

The long 88mm's main round is a full bore APC-BC-HE, a kinetic round with explosive filler. The explosive mass is about 100g and it means for post penetration damage, it does not increase the possibility to defeat armor. APCR with around 280mm has better chance. Moderns composite armors are made to withstand far more powerful kinetic projectiles.

Last of not least, it must be noted that the modern vehicles use a bunch of reactive armor around the vehicle. So even in an 1 on 1 ambush, the TIger II still needs quite a lot of luck to disable modern tanks on the 1st shot, because it is likely its only shot.
joepanzer
Visit this Community
North Carolina, United States
Joined: January 21, 2004
KitMaker: 803 posts
Armorama: 740 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 20, 2020 - 01:24 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

My 2

M-1 Tank with Diesel? Probably not.

M-1 Tank with JP-5? Probably so.

etcetera and so on




I love the belief that Diesel is some how not going to burn. JP-5 is used in the Navy and Abrams due to the treatment to raise the flash point to a higher level. Thus it is less likely to flash than diesel.
The myth that gasoline tanks burn more often than diesel tanks has been studied and disproven. (please do not try to debate the Sherman "tommy cooker" issue, that was ammo not fuel) Diesel is used in tanks due to the energy density of the fuel not its likely hood to not catch fire.






TM-9-2350-255-10-1

p1-43

DO NOT turn on SMOKE GENERATOR SWITCH if tank is using MOGAS or JP4 for fuel. The MOGAS or JP4 will cause explosions instead of smoke generation and could kill you or damage your tank.



My bad, I said JP-5

Never said a word about the diesel not burning



trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 20, 2020 - 02:15 PM UTC
a 90mm (even a 75mm) recoilless round will crack the turret armor on an M48 / M60 tank fairly easily. That taken, and if memory is correct, then the recoilless rifle was a late WWII invention. Just thinking
gary
M4A3E8Easy8
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: February 04, 2006
KitMaker: 302 posts
Armorama: 300 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 20, 2020 - 08:13 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

My 2

M-1 Tank with Diesel? Probably not.

M-1 Tank with JP-5? Probably so.

etcetera and so on




I love the belief that Diesel is some how not going to burn. JP-5 is used in the Navy and Abrams due to the treatment to raise the flash point to a higher level. Thus it is less likely to flash than diesel....







TM-9-2350-255-10-1

p1-43

DO NOT turn on SMOKE GENERATOR SWITCH if tank is using MOGAS or JP4 for fuel. The MOGAS or JP4 will cause explosions instead of smoke generation and could kill you or damage your tank.



My bad, I said JP-5

Never said a word about the diesel not burning




You imply that the use of diesel would have some effect in the survivability of the tank. The only effect the fuel in a tank can have is the perceived burning of the tank.

As for your TM.. you do understand that the smoke generator simply puts raw fuel in the exhaust to cause smoke. Yes Mogas (regular gas) and JP 4 have a lower flash point and will flame up when you attempt this.

Some one asked if the M1 abrams had a diesel in it. The answer is it has always had a turbine. The turbine in abrams will run on almost anything that burns.

In the end the fuel in a tank has almost nothing to do with its survivability when hit.
RobinNilsson
Staff MemberTOS Moderator
KITMAKER NETWORK
Visit this Community
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,687 posts
Armorama: 5,556 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 20, 2020 - 09:42 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

My 2

M-1 Tank with Diesel? Probably not.

M-1 Tank with JP-5? Probably so.

etcetera and so on




I love the belief that Diesel is some how not going to burn. JP-5 is used in the Navy and Abrams due to the treatment to raise the flash point to a higher level. Thus it is less likely to flash than diesel....







TM-9-2350-255-10-1

p1-43

DO NOT turn on SMOKE GENERATOR SWITCH if tank is using MOGAS or JP4 for fuel. The MOGAS or JP4 will cause explosions instead of smoke generation and could kill you or damage your tank.



My bad, I said JP-5

Never said a word about the diesel not burning




You imply that the use of diesel would have some effect in the survivability of the tank. The only effect the fuel in a tank can have is the perceived burning of the tank.

As for your TM.. you do understand that the smoke generator simply puts raw fuel in the exhaust to cause smoke. Yes Mogas (regular gas) and JP 4 have a lower flash point and will flame up when you attempt this.

Some one asked if the M1 abrams had a diesel in it. The answer is it has always had a turbine. The turbine in abrams will run on almost anything that burns.

In the end the fuel in a tank has almost nothing to do with its survivability when hit.



The Swedish Stridsvagn S had fuel tanks on the outside as an integral part of spaced armour. Tested with shaped charge and "normal AP rounds ....
Scarred
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: March 11, 2016
KitMaker: 1,791 posts
Armorama: 1,185 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 20, 2020 - 11:03 PM UTC
Muzzle velocity of Tiger II 88mm - 930 m/s

Muzzle velocity of T-72 125mm smooth bore - 1650 m/s

Muzzle velocity of M1 Abrams 120mm 1,580 to 1,750 m/s

The tanks of today are designed to withstand (or try to anyway) the velocity of rounds nearly twice as fast as that of the 88mm. The slower muzzle velocity and heavy round might make them flinch and say ow and maybe do some damage, like disable it by damaging running gear or destroying the optics but I doubt it could seriously damage todays MBT's. However, I remember them saying the T-72 could go toe to toe with the Abrams.
joepanzer
Visit this Community
North Carolina, United States
Joined: January 21, 2004
KitMaker: 803 posts
Armorama: 740 posts
Posted: Friday, August 21, 2020 - 05:41 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

My 2

M-1 Tank with Diesel? Probably not.

M-1 Tank with JP-5? Probably so.

etcetera and so on




I love the belief that Diesel is some how not going to burn. JP-5 is used in the Navy and Abrams due to the treatment to raise the flash point to a higher level. Thus it is less likely to flash than diesel....







TM-9-2350-255-10-1

p1-43

DO NOT turn on SMOKE GENERATOR SWITCH if tank is using MOGAS or JP4 for fuel. The MOGAS or JP4 will cause explosions instead of smoke generation and could kill you or damage your tank.



My bad, I said JP-5

Never said a word about the diesel not burning




You imply that the use of diesel would have some effect in the survivability of the tank. The only effect the fuel in a tank can have is the perceived burning of the tank.

As for your TM.. you do understand that the smoke generator simply puts raw fuel in the exhaust to cause smoke. Yes Mogas (regular gas) and JP 4 have a lower flash point and will flame up when you attempt this.

Some one asked if the M1 abrams had a diesel in it. The answer is it has always had a turbine. The turbine in abrams will run on almost anything that burns.

In the end the fuel in a tank has almost nothing to do with its survivability when hit.




That's cool.

Your opinion is the only one that matters. Got it.

Don't bother replying.
M4A3E8Easy8
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: February 04, 2006
KitMaker: 302 posts
Armorama: 300 posts
Posted: Friday, August 21, 2020 - 11:04 PM UTC
[/quote]

You imply that the use of diesel would have some effect in the survivability of the tank. The only effect the fuel in a tank can have is the perceived burning of the tank.

As for your TM.. you do understand that the smoke generator simply puts raw fuel in the exhaust to cause smoke. Yes Mogas (regular gas) and JP 4 have a lower flash point and will flame up when you attempt this.

Some one asked if the M1 abrams had a diesel in it. The answer is it has always had a turbine. The turbine in abrams will run on almost anything that burns.

In the end the fuel in a tank has almost nothing to do with its survivability when hit.


That's cool.

Your opinion is the only one that matters. Got it.

Don't bother replying.
[/quote]

There are no opinions in my posts. Yours, with the tanks with different fuels being more or less likely to be destroyed is an opinion. Then you try to misuse a fact to prove your opinion. When I point that out you imply a personal attack. Well please do respod to this. It is called a debate, it is part of life. However I suggest you stick with the topic and not go after the personal side.
Removed by original poster on 08/22/20 - 11:07:36 (GMT).
mmeier
Visit this Community
Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
Joined: October 22, 2008
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,015 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 22, 2020 - 03:31 AM UTC
Stuff like Leopard I, AMX-30, T54/T55 and maybe T62 should still be valid targets for the various 88mm incarnations. The US 90mm tank gun in M26/M47/M48 plays in the same power range and those where it's targets. With T62 being "hit the side please"

And those things still make up a large number of the tanks world wide.
joepanzer
Visit this Community
North Carolina, United States
Joined: January 21, 2004
KitMaker: 803 posts
Armorama: 740 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 22, 2020 - 09:30 AM UTC

Quoted Text




You imply that the use of diesel would have some effect in the survivability of the tank. The only effect the fuel in a tank can have is the perceived burning of the tank.

As for your TM.. you do understand that the smoke generator simply puts raw fuel in the exhaust to cause smoke. Yes Mogas (regular gas) and JP 4 have a lower flash point and will flame up when you attempt this.

Some one asked if the M1 abrams had a diesel in it. The answer is it has always had a turbine. The turbine in abrams will run on almost anything that burns.

In the end the fuel in a tank has almost nothing to do with its survivability when hit.


That's cool.

Your opinion is the only one that matters. Got it.

Don't bother replying.
[/quote]

There are no opinions in my posts. Yours, with the tanks with different fuels being more or less likely to be destroyed is an opinion. Then you try to misuse a fact to prove your opinion. When I point that out you imply a personal attack. Well please do respod to this. It is called a debate, it is part of life. However I suggest you stick with the topic and not go after the personal side.[/quote]



AHHAhHAHhHAhHAhHAHhHAHhHAhHAHHAHhHAhHAhHAhHAhHAHhHAhHAhA!!!


This WHOLE FORUM TOPIC IS ABOUT OPINIONS!!!!!!

Please, do not respond. I value my ability to come and enjoy discourse with people on Armorama who want to exchange ideas and build EACH OTHER up and not just models.

It's reached the point of harassment now.

19k20 1986-90, 91 GW1

stikpusher
Visit this Community
Arizona, United States
Joined: June 16, 2005
KitMaker: 79 posts
Armorama: 75 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 22, 2020 - 10:09 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Stuff like Leopard I, AMX-30, T54/T55 and maybe T62 should still be valid targets for the various 88mm incarnations. The US 90mm tank gun in M26/M47/M48 plays in the same power range and those where it's targets. With T62 being "hit the side please"

And those things still make up a large number of the tanks world wide.



Exactly. Think of ARVN M41s against NVA T54s. In favorable tactical situations the main gun on the M41 was adequate for defeating the heavier T-54s. And that gun was less powerful than the KwK 43.
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 22, 2020 - 01:39 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Stuff like Leopard I, AMX-30, T54/T55 and maybe T62 should still be valid targets for the various 88mm incarnations. The US 90mm tank gun in M26/M47/M48 plays in the same power range and those where it's targets. With T62 being "hit the side please"

And those things still make up a large number of the tanks world wide.



Exactly. Think of ARVN M41s against NVA T54s. In favorable tactical situations the main gun on the M41 was adequate for defeating the heavier T-54s. And that gun was less powerful than the KwK 43.



I was home chasing a beautiful brunette when those events happened. I do know that the ARVN actually were successful using the basic M72 LAW on armor (T34-85 and T59's). How they did this is still beyond me, but figure they must have been in the fifty foot range. The generic 90mm gun would literally rip the turret off a T34 at 400 yards, and probably do the same with a T54/T59. Especially if the round hits the breech as it passes thru.
The Isrealies made many 1000 meter one shot kills on T62 and even some T72 (export model) in the Baka Valley many years back. Certain they used a SABOT, but they were using something similar in WWII. So why not?
gary
Dinocamo
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: August 26, 2017
KitMaker: 90 posts
Armorama: 88 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 22, 2020 - 10:38 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I was home chasing a beautiful brunette when those events happened. I do know that the ARVN actually were successful using the basic M72 LAW on armor (T34-85 and T59's). How they did this is still beyond me, but figure they must have been in the fifty foot range. The generic 90mm gun would literally rip the turret off a T34 at 400 yards, and probably do the same with a T54/T59. Especially if the round hits the breech as it passes thru.
The Isrealies made many 1000 meter one shot kills on T62 and even some T72 (export model) in the Baka Valley many years back. Certain they used a SABOT, but they were using something similar in WWII. So why not?
gary


T-34's armor is obsolete since the later phase of WW2, it is not a great feat to defeat a T-34 after WW2.

During Vietnam, because of the terrain and geographic, ambushing is a very common tactic. Even though the NVN was well known for guerrilla tactic, the SVN did it as well, just not as extreme. Even in today warfare, in urban area, soldiers with portable anti-vehicle rocket could disable tanks by hiding and surprise attack; still very risky doing so, but not impossible.

Most of the M41 victories over T-54 were on defensive or offensive position, as such, they had the passive advantage. Also, you should look further than just the caliber (bore diameter), the APDS ammuniton of the 76mm M32 used on the M41 actually has higher penetration capacity than the long 88mm, believe it or not.

Similar technology to WW2 means very little. Technology advances and refines over time, such as the example of the M41's 76mm APDS I give above. Like car today are much better than car in the 70s even though they are mechanically the same.

Which vehicle should we consider "modern"? I would take "modern" as in the 3rd generation of MBT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_generation), before that would be the post WW2 and cold war era.
Merki4
Visit this Community
Modena, Italy
Joined: March 28, 2009
KitMaker: 77 posts
Armorama: 76 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 01:02 AM UTC
So, I say mine then maybe I'm wrong, starting from the assumption that modern tanks if stripped of the various additional ERA type armor, so for example an Abrams, I am quite convinced that if hit sideways from about 800 meters it would certainly penetrate the hull and perhaps also in the turret, frontally I also think that there is no game.
Modern tank are designed for a war of movement whose exposed side is and must be only the front one, always taking the Abrams as an example, this has practically no armor on the hull side or rear, while this is massive only on the turret and hull front. my two cents
Lucio
Scarred
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: March 11, 2016
KitMaker: 1,791 posts
Armorama: 1,185 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 02:49 AM UTC
The sides of the turret are much thicker than they appear. There's a picture floating around of a blown out turret showing the inner and outer skin. The space between the two is several inches thick. They obviously removed the armor that filled the space, probably for security reasons. With the advanced armor the equivalent thickness in RHA used in WWII would be much greater.

I don't believe the 88mm would be able to penetrate it.

I have doubts it would do too much damage to the side of the hull either because of the spacing of the outer armored skirts, tracks and side hull.

The 88mm most likely would be able to take one out from a shot to the rear thru the rear bulkhead and into the engine.

The advances armors of today would shrug off an 88 with out too much damage.

Found the picture I was looking for.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e2/99/4b/e2994b49d0b60e35bad77813944a5f77.jpg
M4A3E8Easy8
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: February 04, 2006
KitMaker: 302 posts
Armorama: 300 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 03:43 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text





That's cool.

Your opinion is the only one that matters. Got it.

Don't bother replying.



There are no opinions in my posts. Yours, with the tanks with different fuels being more or less likely to be destroyed is an opinion. Then you try to misuse a fact to prove your opinion. When I point that out you imply a personal attack. Well please do respod to this. It is called a debate, it is part of life. However I suggest you stick with the topic and not go after the personal side.[/quote]



AHHAhHAHhHAhHAhHAHhHAHhHAhHAHHAHhHAhHAhHAhHAhHAHhHAhHAhA!!!


This WHOLE FORUM TOPIC IS ABOUT OPINIONS!!!!!!

Please, do not respond. I value my ability to come and enjoy discourse with people on Armorama who want to exchange ideas and build EACH OTHER up and not just models.

It's reached the point of harassment now.

19k20 1986-90, 91 GW1

[/quote]



Harassment?? really, stating facts is harassment?? it is actually the exchanging of ideas. I have not attempted to tear you down at any point. Can you say the same? Interesting take on life. I will continue to respond, it is a RIGHT in this country. You do not need to read it because that is up to you. Shutting down the "other side" of a debate because you think it should not be heard is just petty.

Now back on topic.

I would say that an 88 would have no issue at all taking out any modern tank from the rear. There are more than a few that it could possibly pen the side of the turret (towards the rear) on some of them as well. How ever that leaves you with the issue of getting the rear shot. (sounds alot like the 75mm shermans in WWII)

Now if we throw a modern AFPDS shell into the 88 things get more interesting. Why hand cuff the 88 to old solid shot AP. Still unlikely it can punch through the face of modern turrets, but the sides come into play.
BootsDMS
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: February 08, 2012
KitMaker: 978 posts
Armorama: 965 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 03:56 AM UTC
Jeez Robin, can we please close this down?
Johnnych01
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: June 29, 2019
KitMaker: 604 posts
Armorama: 506 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 04:35 AM UTC
I vote with Brian
Scarred
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: March 11, 2016
KitMaker: 1,791 posts
Armorama: 1,185 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 07:02 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Now if we throw a modern AFPDS shell into the 88 things get more interesting. Why hand cuff the 88 to old solid shot AP. Still unlikely it can punch through the face of modern turrets, but the sides come into play.



Because OP stated "can most feared anti-tank cannon of WW II" so that would mean it would be limited to the ammo available in WWII. We're not talking paper panzers or ammo that didn't exist back then. Unless they could get a much higher muzzle velocity tanks like the Challenger 2, Leclerc, Leopard 2, Type 10, K2 and Abrams would most likely shrug it off. The Russian tanks are all designed around what proved to be a fatal flaw, the main gun ammo stored around the turret ring. We saw what happens when they take a hit in the side of the hull and that ammo cooks off. But the newer series are better armored so they might survive a hit from an 88.
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 04:04 PM UTC

Quoted Text

So, I say mine then maybe I'm wrong, starting from the assumption that modern tanks if stripped of the various additional ERA type armor, so for example an Abrams, I am quite convinced that if hit sideways from about 800 meters it would certainly penetrate the hull and perhaps also in the turret, frontally I also think that there is no game.
Modern tank are designed for a war of movement whose exposed side is and must be only the front one, always taking the Abrams as an example, this has practically no armor on the hull side or rear, while this is massive only on the turret and hull front. my two cents
Lucio



knowing the actual construction of the turret, I can only say never
gary
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 04:13 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The sides of the turret are much thicker than they appear. There's a picture floating around of a blown out turret showing the inner and outer skin. The space between the two is several inches thick. They obviously removed the armor that filled the space, probably for security reasons. With the advanced armor the equivalent thickness in RHA used in WWII would be much greater.

I don't believe the 88mm would be able to penetrate it.

I have doubts it would do too much damage to the side of the hull either because of the spacing of the outer armored skirts, tracks and side hull.

The 88mm most likely would be able to take one out from a shot to the rear thru the rear bulkhead and into the engine.

The advances armors of today would shrug off an 88 with out too much damage.

Found the picture I was looking for.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e2/99/4b/e2994b49d0b60e35bad77813944a5f77.jpg



There's a video of the M1-IP turret placed on a stand, and shot with a naval five inch gun (might have been a six inch) shooting APC rounds right into the side from about three hundred yards or maybe even less. The turret did not break up, and there was no sign of penetration! Yet there was one huge ball of fire all over half the turret. The hit really was over hyped, as the folks inside would have been Jello from the concussion alone!

I've been in the Lima Tank plant several times, and trust me that hull and turret are seriously over built.
gary
Scarred
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: March 11, 2016
KitMaker: 1,791 posts
Armorama: 1,185 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 07:48 PM UTC
There is no such thing as overbuilt.
barkingdigger
Staff MemberAssociate Editor
ARMORAMA
#013
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,976 posts
Armorama: 3,400 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 23, 2020 - 08:49 PM UTC

Quoted Text

There is no such thing as overbuilt.



Especially if you're the guy inside it!