straight down the muzzle while reloading will do it. if you catch the round right as it's partially loaded it'll ignite the powder and kill the crew, at least. if you hit the same spot any other time it'll buttfrick the breach. but you need to hit a 5" circle that moves around.
>They were still firing cannonballs as opposed to shaped ammo
no they werent, especially not rifled cannons like op's pic
they shot high explosive shells and almost NEVER shot cannonballs or any solid shot, even the smooth bores, but op is clearly talking about a rifled cannon
true i was thinking about field guns not siege guns, but wouldnt an HE shell still be better anyways? black powder doesnt have enough force to send a bolt fast enough to penetrate deeply into the armor, they all go roughly 8-900 feet per second
with a shell you can atleast rely on the explosive force of the shot
>with a shell you can atleast rely on the explosive force of the shot
Black powder HE has pathetic explosive power.
Even with proper high proper explosive like TNT or RDX HE shells pen less then solid AP. There is reason why AP rounds had very small HE charge or no charge at all.
Abrams ammo explodes outward through break-away panels and doesn't cook the crew.
Your best bet is aiming every cannon at the tracks. You can probably immobilize it. But then the confused commander would spin the IR tracker over to you and it'd all be over.
depends on the gun some of the larger naval cannons probably could. disable a tank similar to how high explosive 155mm shells have been seen to disable tanks.
the idea of actually penetrating Armour wasn't really an idea at the time of the us civil war. the first AP shell the Palliser shell wasn't even invented till 1867
The popular line of thought at the time on how to defeat Armour like that present of iron clads was to actually crush the Armour instead of penetrating it so that's why you get the massive dahlgrens and columbiads and the high velocity but blunt projectile brook rifles.
the 4-6 inches of armor seen on most ironclads made them pretty much impervious to all gunfire. hardly any ironclads were sunk by cannon fire and the ones that were due to almost always mobility kills followed by scuttling from the crew rather than ammo detention or flooding.
so unless there is a critical area with like less than 25 for a 12 pounder or 3 inch or 100mm of Armour with something like a brooke or Dahlgren your best chance for a "kill" outside of overpressure would be tracks
don't forget that metallurgy is far better now than it was in the 1800s. so even the thin hatch armor probably provides more protection than the entire ironclad protection scheme. maybe with an extremely heavy shell you could get a hatch to fail in a bulk sense and just be forced into the fighting compartment. I think that would require a very low obliquity hit, however, which is improbable.
though those are naval guns and far larger than the wheeled field gun in OPs pic
the standard issue 12pdr muzzle-loading cannon had a muzzle velocity of only about 450 m/s with a 110mm wide ball
back of the envelope calculations suggest a penetration of 40mm into steel, just barely enough to penetrate the rear or roof armor
sides have an additional armored skirt
but this would assume no engagement angle and fired from the muzzle
at distances of more than a few dozen meters, its entirely possible that it doesnt matter where you fire at an M1, barring an extremely lucky hit to the tracks, it will do no more than bounce off even the thinnest armor
>so unless there is a critical area with like less than 25 for a 12 pounder or 3 inch or 100mm of Armour with something like a brooke or Dahlgren your best chance for a "kill" outside of overpressure would be tracks
a subsonic iron ball would have difficulty penetrating any part of the abrams
even the 2in thick roof armor would have a decent chance to deflect it (and how would you even aim a cannonball straight down?)
they can shoot shells loaded with tnt like any modern shell, so yea it has the ability to frick shit up
it just has to hit the tracks, then it can have a field day shooting at the abrams until the people inside just give up
>They were still firing cannonballs as opposed to shaped ammo
no they werent, especially not rifled cannons like op's pic
they shot high explosive shells and almost NEVER shot cannonballs or any solid shot, even the smooth bores, but op is clearly talking about a rifled cannon
it sounded more like he was insulting cannons for only being able to use cannon balls
but if its just "it cant shoot without ammunition" then no shit moron no gun can do that
instead of you dumbasses pretending to know about the topic why not watch a real video of shooting a tank with a civil war era cannon and decide based off that
straight down the muzzle while reloading will do it. if you catch the round right as it's partially loaded it'll ignite the powder and kill the crew, at least. if you hit the same spot any other time it'll buttfrick the breach. but you need to hit a 5" circle that moves around.
They were still firing cannonballs as opposed to shaped ammo, so the surface area would be too spread out to penetrate the armor
Unless you make a literal one in teb million shot like this
>They were still firing cannonballs as opposed to shaped ammo
no they werent, especially not rifled cannons like op's pic
they shot high explosive shells and almost NEVER shot cannonballs or any solid shot, even the smooth bores, but op is clearly talking about a rifled cannon
Against thick/hard (rock/brkc) walled fortifications were supposed to be used solid shots as having best penetration.
true i was thinking about field guns not siege guns, but wouldnt an HE shell still be better anyways? black powder doesnt have enough force to send a bolt fast enough to penetrate deeply into the armor, they all go roughly 8-900 feet per second
with a shell you can atleast rely on the explosive force of the shot
>with a shell you can atleast rely on the explosive force of the shot
Black powder HE has pathetic explosive power.
Even with proper high proper explosive like TNT or RDX HE shells pen less then solid AP. There is reason why AP rounds had very small HE charge or no charge at all.
Abrams ammo explodes outward through break-away panels and doesn't cook the crew.
Your best bet is aiming every cannon at the tracks. You can probably immobilize it. But then the confused commander would spin the IR tracker over to you and it'd all be over.
As if. I have a 30 yd lanyard.
Just pop an explosive shell into an open hatch firing from elevation. Ez.
IDIOT
Put it into orbit, fire the cannon and slingshot the cannonball around the moon and back to earth to hit the tank.
Shrimples.
depends on the gun some of the larger naval cannons probably could. disable a tank similar to how high explosive 155mm shells have been seen to disable tanks.
the idea of actually penetrating Armour wasn't really an idea at the time of the us civil war. the first AP shell the Palliser shell wasn't even invented till 1867
The popular line of thought at the time on how to defeat Armour like that present of iron clads was to actually crush the Armour instead of penetrating it so that's why you get the massive dahlgrens and columbiads and the high velocity but blunt projectile brook rifles.
the 4-6 inches of armor seen on most ironclads made them pretty much impervious to all gunfire. hardly any ironclads were sunk by cannon fire and the ones that were due to almost always mobility kills followed by scuttling from the crew rather than ammo detention or flooding.
so unless there is a critical area with like less than 25 for a 12 pounder or 3 inch or 100mm of Armour with something like a brooke or Dahlgren your best chance for a "kill" outside of overpressure would be tracks
don't forget that metallurgy is far better now than it was in the 1800s. so even the thin hatch armor probably provides more protection than the entire ironclad protection scheme. maybe with an extremely heavy shell you could get a hatch to fail in a bulk sense and just be forced into the fighting compartment. I think that would require a very low obliquity hit, however, which is improbable.
though those are naval guns and far larger than the wheeled field gun in OPs pic
the standard issue 12pdr muzzle-loading cannon had a muzzle velocity of only about 450 m/s with a 110mm wide ball
back of the envelope calculations suggest a penetration of 40mm into steel, just barely enough to penetrate the rear or roof armor
sides have an additional armored skirt
but this would assume no engagement angle and fired from the muzzle
at distances of more than a few dozen meters, its entirely possible that it doesnt matter where you fire at an M1, barring an extremely lucky hit to the tracks, it will do no more than bounce off even the thinnest armor
>so unless there is a critical area with like less than 25 for a 12 pounder or 3 inch or 100mm of Armour with something like a brooke or Dahlgren your best chance for a "kill" outside of overpressure would be tracks
a subsonic iron ball would have difficulty penetrating any part of the abrams
even the 2in thick roof armor would have a decent chance to deflect it (and how would you even aim a cannonball straight down?)
hit the barrel or a drive sprocket and thats a mission kill
they can shoot shells loaded with tnt like any modern shell, so yea it has the ability to frick shit up
it just has to hit the tracks, then it can have a field day shooting at the abrams until the people inside just give up
This thing can't shoot without cannonballs
stop spouting this moronic belief, look at
>This thing can't shoot without
>shells
ditto
it sounded more like he was insulting cannons for only being able to use cannon balls
but if its just "it cant shoot without ammunition" then no shit moron no gun can do that
instead of you dumbasses pretending to know about the topic why not watch a real video of shooting a tank with a civil war era cannon and decide based off that
HE into the opened hatch