Current MBTs vs a Battleships gun...

[Nickuru]

Originally Posted by SRV Ron

There were two sets of data given for shape charges and high explosives. Armor piercing is dependent on the kinetic energy which is why depleted uranium is commonly used on gatling gun ammo for A-10 jets and other similar systems.

Just the kinetic energy of a 16 inch shell weighing over a ton would easily overwhelm the mass of any main battle tank flinging it a long distance with pieces flying in all directions.

However, using the armor technology of today in place of the sheer thickness of steel armor plating of the WW2 battleships, would give those ships a lot more protection with less weight. That would have allowed them to use that weight savings for a more powerful propulsion system, better main guns or ammo, more range, etc...

Another question would be if the battleship is firng High Explosive shells (HE) or Armour Piercing (AP) shells. The crew inside will be burnt toast in either case. A HE detonation could blow the turret off the tank but it might still be mobile. An AP shell would destroy the tank from within, no matter what the angle. Look at the naval battles involving modern (Russo-Japanese war forward) ships. Armour is penetrated even at a steep angle, hits are made below the waterline even on inward sloping armour. These hits with armour piercing shells enter the target and cause severe damage inside the ship even at acute angles to the armour.

Please remove politics from your avatar the whole thing has become a charade.

[dundonrl]

ok, just found a video of a 2000 lb bomb dropped on a M-60 MBT. There wouldn't be much left of any tank if it was hit by a 16" shell, either High Explosive or Armor Piercing...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=052_1283205673

[GCoyote]

Interesting that the turret stayed on.

[The Exorcist]

Originally Posted by Half Pint John

End of debate.

Yeah, sure was!