Why is there a big gap between the body and the turret? Isnt that a pretty big weak spot...

Also this is exactly how the Tiger 131 in Bovington was disabled / captured

>Tiger 131 was hit by three shots from 6-pounders from British Churchill tanks of A Squadron, 4 Troop of the 48th Royal Tank Regiment. A solid shot hit the Tiger's gun barrel and ricocheted into its turret ring, jamming its traverse,

Because of the extreme power of modern penetrators, shot traps don't really matter anymore. The turret ring is a very small target to hit and while it could pose a small risk, the shot is more likely to hit the front slope and shatter or hit the turret face and not go through.

Is that a Tiger in the picture?

Go be nogunz somewhere else retard

Attached: 1543004734154.png (645x729, 22K)

You do realize the tiger and the abrams have turret rings right? You do realize that turrets rotate the same way right?

Attached: 1523678218164.gif (785x757, 90K)

Modern round will penetrate armor and kill everyone inside. Who the hell will care about jammed turret then?

Not entirely correct, a moving bullet experiences some lifting forces.

Oh yeah, totally. Also still made of the same metal, fight the same way, and face the same enemy.

Dip shit.

The Chobam armor is not in the turret ring dipshit. The rings are made from the same steel as they were on the M60, M48, and other vehicles.

Yes which is why no one really cares because the odds of this happening is slim w/ a rifle. You or some annon asked what's the point of shooting the ring, to which the answer is to jam the gear.

>Drop a bullet and shoot a bullet, they hit the ground at the same time.
once you break max terminal velocity this no longer true

Yeah, I got you man, that's why they still field Tigers.

You do realize that tank combat has changed massively, and that modern tanks are designed the way they are for very precise reasons, right? You do realize that at the ranges tank-on-tank combat will be happening that you're aiming for the TANK, not a part of the tank, right? You do realize that the Abrams can shoot back, right?

>drink up

Attached: spin_prod_ec_773854901.jpg (468x468, 23K)

>jam the gear
I don't you understand how strong modern electric turrets are.

>i don't think

Unf. That cope. Next time don't say some retarded shit like tanks from 1940's are the same as one in two-fucking-thousand.

Jame the turret ring and a modern tank can still pivot pretty quickly and still have control over the gun's elevation. It's obviously not ideal but for firing at another tank you may be able to get a shot off and hit the target.
I would still maintain that a turret jamming these days is difficult since if the shot hits the ring, and penetrates, then a jammed turret is far from the biggest problem the crew is experiencing at that moment.

6 pounder is a fucking 57mm.

Is your AMR a 57mm?

I wasn't saying tank vs tank engagements, look back at the first part of the thread moron,

>annon asks, It seems like you could disable the turret with s rifle is you can aim.
>another annon responds Shoot the turret ring
>another annon doesn't think this will cause damage
>example given, but retard thinks some how that turret rings are made of super secret metal shell proof alloy

If you can't see or understand that there is nothing more that can be done here

Attached: 1507591957257.jpg (574x863, 73K)

The dipshit wanted an example of a tank being dissabled by a turret ring hit, he gets a real world example, HUURR NOT PROOF B/C REASONS!!!!!

But I'm the retard... Whatever kids

Attached: 1512402651705.jpg (622x767, 73K)

Implying a bullet shit straight in the air, then coming down to be limited by terminal velocity would have ANY threat to a fucking tank.

Enough lifting force to have a significant effect on a target at range? Trying to sound smart but its well known that point of aim and are very different things in relation to a firearm and any shot from range is going to have measurable and perceivable ballistic arc.

>Could this happen to an Abrams?
>LEEEET ME TALK ABOUT A TIGER FROM 1940, IT'S JUST AS RELEVANT.

Shit son, go run up to it with your bong boys rifle, i'm sure it'll work, it did back then, right? Since nothing changes.

Is there a "rifle" (hand-held or crew-served) that can penetrate this? No.
You need both the proper power and angle. Your shot would need to be flat and that means firing from very close to the tank. Otherwise it will have drop and hit the hull's slope or the turret itself. Being that close would also mean the turret could easily traverse then shred you with canister shot. Congrats, you've just become hamburger meat.

Attached: main-qimg-9a42822d5637ba97799690da8a426f99.jpg (602x342, 62K)

>6-pounders from British Churchill tanks
>small arms
I mean, a 6 pound bullet is still a big bullet.

>Yuuup. I could totally knockout one of them Abrahams tanks with my deer rifle. Just aim for the optics so the commander pokes his head out and then pop him. Or wait until the breech is opened and shoot down the barrel so the bullet ricochets inside and kills the crew.

a race to the bottom

>Isnt that a pretty big weak spot?
Yes, it is. It's a design fault, but since it's a Cold War tank designed to combat Soviet tank armies in a fighting retreat at long range, it's acceptable. It's not like the average Soviet tank crew would be capable of aiming specifically at the ring in close engagement, or even willing to. With the inferior Soviet optics, any tanks in range to actually target the turret ring would be in sight of the Abrams and thus would be shooting at whatever part of the tank they could, lest they be destroyed themselves.

>inferior Soviet optic
oh boy here we go

Considering gunnery training and optic quality don't really permit making these kinds of shots into tiny weakspots like this on any basis, there is not that much of a chance to make that shot. With a rifle though, you need to be a crack shot to hit that, if you can keep your cool under 120mm MPAT fire and fire from maybe up to 3 machine guns.

Yes, Soviet optics were inferior when the Abrams was rolled out.

Bit of a blanket statement there, because the situational awareness of the M1/M1A1 was not spectacular.

The good
> Thermal optics (not the latest tech, the thermals on the Abrams was inferior to the thermals on M60A3 until M1A2.
> Decent turret stabilization in the horizontal
> Vertically stabilized gunsight
> good daytime gunsight optics
> good commander's cupola vision block coverage
> good vision blocks for the loader

The mediocre
> Gunsight mirror was only stabilized in vertical, not horizontal
> Vision blocks were too small

The bad
> No independent commander's optic of any sort. The Abrams was always supposed to have a CITV but was deleted to save money on M1/M1A1.
> No Hunter-Killer capability, commander needs to manually control turret traverse to slew gunner on target.

>anti-mater payload
KA CHOW

And then you realize rotating the whole tank is only marginally more difficult and only prevents optimal deflection angling

Stupid questions like this don't belong in here

Based retard

Give proofs or your pee pee is smol.

That sounds like a great way to kill off your own snipers

Given an example with proof of a modern Western MBT like an Abrams or Leopard turret ring being stopped by an anti-material rifle.

Attached: A89D0D86-87AD-4391-8B44-9F912A8943FE.png (1022x731, 639K)

The "gap" is two giant steel rings, backed by a circular armor plate that you can't see from the outside

>Drop a bullet and shoot a bullet, they hit the ground at the same time.

Attached: 1538753831702.jpg (903x960, 52K)