Uploaded by Dr_Robotpony 
2900x1640 PNG 3.12 MB
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
No description provided.
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
No description provided.
Doesn’t even need to be a ground attack plane; many tanks have thin enough roof armour for a .50 to penetrate.
So? I still wouldn’t want to be in a panzer with just about any anti-tank aircraft or light bomber attacking me.
…well, on the defensive, remember that an M1A1/M1A2 only carries 40 rounds for the 120mm gun. If you have enough attackers, making the defender use up all his ammo is a tactic. It’s probably not the best tactic, of course, and would presumably work a lot better with proper support (like, 150mm+ artillery shelling the defenders’ positions, and infantry and scouts to probe the defending positions and figure out their locations) but a modern MBT tends to have thermal imaging sights that can see quite well in total darkness, or through smoke and dust, plus laser rangefinders, a very sophisticated ballistic calculating computer to aim the main gun, and armament capable of one-shotting any WWII tank at any distance at which it can be seen–depending on terrain, well, in 2003 one British tank unit with Challenger MBTs claimed first-shot hits and kills on Iraqi T55 and T62 tanks at 5km+.
Not, mind you, that there are a lot of places even in flat Middle Eastern desert where you have a reasonable expectation of being able to see and have clear unobstructed line of sight/line of fire that far away. Most of western and central Europe is so highly developed and built-up that analysis done by NATO in the 1970s of WWII tank battles suggested even 1km line of sight/line of fire couldn’t be assumed in most places.
If the M1A1/M1A2 tanks have to attack a fortified, prepared defense without proper infantry and artillery support it doesn’t go so well for them. If it’s just tank vs. tank the WWII Germans just have to wait for them to pass by and shoot them from the flanks or rear. Modern MBTs are very well protected–at the front of the hull and at the front and to a slightly lesser extent sides of the turret. The sides of the hull, rear of the hull, and rear of the turret aren’t nearly so well protected. Assuming well-trained, well-disciplined crews who are aware of the limitations of their equipment and skilled at fieldcraft, given prep time they could camouflage their vehicles and make them very difficult to detect, with a good chance of going unseen until they fired the first shot, presumably at a vulnerable portion of the modern MBTs.
Also, however well armored modern MBTs are, antitank mines can still stop them by damaging their tracks. Snipers can pick off the crews when they get out to try to fix the damage. And if infantry are allowed, even WWII infantry–well, imagine lots of two-man teams with Panzerfaust antitank rockets hiding in camouflaged foxholes and behind every bush–and it’s worse in urban warfare, because there are so many well-protected places for defending infantry to hide, and lots of places to conceal mines and roadside bombs. I would not discount their ability to damage modern MBTs, if not destroy them outright from every angle. Panzerfausts fired at the rear of the hull, to the sides of the hull, and to the tracks and suspension, could disable the tanks and at least stop them from moving.
IL-2 Sturmovisk.
Pe-2’s as well…
There’s the Kukuruznik then :P
P-47’s didnt really appear all to often on the eastern front, you know.
P-47s did it better :P
An Abrams side was pierced by a 30mm anti tank gun. Her reactive plates were not on the side. Aka the skirts. But yeah tbh in full look that up. Interesting story. They made it into a big deal questioning how far the tank can actually go.
That would be about as lopsided as any battle ever got.
Someone on a mil-sim forum compared the Abrams to the King Tiger, the most powerful tank of WW2, and concluded that it would take roughly 60 KTs to down a single Abrams. Most of those would be the necessary meat shields to absorb all the Abrams’ ammunition so the remainder could get in close enough to retaliate. Said retaliation consists of knocking out either a tread or the engine to paralyze the far-faster Abrams, and then ramming the target into submission because 1940’s firepower can’t dent the armor of a modern main battle tank.
Don’t worry, Pinkie’s got an IS-2. :P
She embedded the jewels in the armour herself, darling.
Ooooh, the beauty that would be. Modern armor vs. 1930’s tech XD
Oh wow didn’t notice them.
Stuka stealth bombers. Thank goodness they make a lot of noise.
Where do I get my cookie?
Also Stuka’s.