How strong is the armor defense of the tank?

Completely impossible

How strong the armor defense of a tank depends on its specific type and type of armor, and the defense of a tank with ** reactive armor against armor-piercing shells is about equivalent to 1200 to 1400 mm thick steel plates. Can you imagine a gun piercing a steel plate more than a meter thick?

Shoot 700 meters at a distance of millimeters thick A3 steel plate; The caliber of the millimeter is .56 mm caliber for .45% caliber 0%.

Shoot at 300 meters with a thickness of 10 mm A3 steel plates: mm caliber56% for both the millimeter caliber and the millimeter caliber.

In the Gulf War.

The T72 of Central Iraq was unable to penetrate the front armor of the M1 even with a 125mm smoothbore gun at a distance of 100 meters. In the war in Iraq.

The British Challenger 2 had eight RPGs in its possession.

Still drove back to the base on his own.

It is undoubtedly a fool's dream to use a sniper rifle to penetrate a tank, of course, if you use a modern large-caliber sniper rifle with shell-piercing shells to fight World War I or World War II.

When the tank light tank is still promising.

The protection capabilities of modern tanks are generally very strong, even tank guns of more than 100 mm are difficult to penetrate, and ** such as RPGs are basically ignored, but anti-tank missiles still pose a great threat.

It is almost impossible for a sniper rifle to penetrate its armor (you can imagine the effect of hitting a half-meter-thick steel plate with a gun).

No, the sniper rifle you said was mainly used in World War 1, when the British first put in tanks, and the German soldiers couldn't deal with it, but your soldier's gun went off and actually pierced the tank's armor, and I later found out that the bullet in the soldier's chamber at that time was a K bullet (now an armor-piercing bullet).

Therefore, Germany vigorously made K bullets and made rifles with a larger caliber.2 In the early stage of World War II, although anti-materiel guns could also fight tanks, but in the middle and late stages, the armor of tanks was thicker, and fighting tanks was the work of anti-tank guns, rocket launchers, own tanks, and aircraft.

Except that the top may be able to penetrate, it is not possible anywhere else. Even the observation port is bulletproof glass, which can be bulletproof. The equivalent armor of our 99 tank is 1200mm, which is equivalent to a steel plate thick in meters.

It is impossible for a sniper rifle to penetrate the armor of a tank, at least with rocket artillery and howitzers.

For the current third-generation main battle tank, let alone a sniper rifle, even with an anti-materiel rifle or even a tank gun, it may not be able to penetrate it.

There is still a way.

You aim the barrel of the gun with the gun on the spot, and you have to shoot it in.

Then the shells inside exploded.

It is equivalent to about one meter of homogeneous steel plate.

Not at all. Don't think about anything.

In Iraq, the ventilation system behind US tanks was a weak point.

During World War II, the German Tiger's tank, for example, was the weakest in the protective armor behind the engine. And the American "Sherman" tank is also weakly armored in the whole body, but the armor of the chassis is relatively good.

The top armor of the tank is the thinnest part of the tank's whole body armor, which is the tank's"Dead Hole"One.

The side, tail, and belly (also known as bottom armor) armor of the tank is also relatively thin, which is also the "dead hole" of the tank. The vast majority of the various types of anti-tank weapons in service were attacked from these places.

In addition, the tank's travel system (tracks, load wheels, guide wheels, etc.) is also relatively weak, and it is extremely vulnerable to attack and paralyze the tank, until it is finally destroyed. Active anti-tank mines mainly attack the belly of the tank and its running system.

The frontal part of the tank, despite the thickness of the main armor, also had flaws. There is one at the junction of the turret and the body of the tank"Nest bomb area"If you can grasp the fighter plane to attack this place accurately in actual combat, it is completely possible to destroy the tank from the front.

The underbody and the top of the turret, these 2 areas are weaker, and the front is the strongest. Now some tanks have been strengthened underneath and on top. From a practical point of view, the track is the weakest.

The thickness of the rear armor plate is the thinnest. The thickness of the armor plate directly in front is the thickest... It is the armor plate of the power room and the transmission room.

The chassis is the weakest Because the chassis will not be hit directly by hundreds of millimeters of shells, so in order to enhance the maneuverability as much as possible, the thickness of the armor should be reduced, but now the tank has thickened the armor of the chassis in order to defend against mine attacks The top is also a relatively weak point, because this is the part that is not often hit in actual combat The joint between the turret and the body is also very weak, and the Israeli Merkava has added a chain to solve this problem.

The chassis, turret and body joint.

Recap: Where is the tank most vulnerable? The expert actually said this, what a long insight!

The best defense in the ten levels must be rats, in terms of attack, 50b hooligans are very scary, police cars are deep and high, and the cumulative damage is high, and 100 gold coin bullets are a god, and the -7 comprehensive offensive strength is good.

Level 9, whether it is defense or offense, 75 is more comprehensive. A 103 with a complete body is also good.

The heavy tank below the eighth level is meat.

The best defense is definitely rats.

If you attack, if you talk about a single shot, e100, if you are f-system, the output with an ammunition clip is okay (but at the moment 4 rounds are weakly exploded).

Maneuver Fire Defense

If the landlord is a novice, he still goes to the Su system.

After playing for a while.

If you love sneak attack, then the legal system.

If you like complex terrain, play the American system.

Ashkenazi has always been pitted.

The rat type is the best heavy tank for defense, the front, sides and back are powerful, and the armor is the thickest in the D series, but the ricochet in the S series is the best.

If it's a top-of-the-line car.

Simply calculate the thickness of the armor The mouse is the highest, the blood is more, and it absorbs more damage, but combined with the bonus of the inclined armor, the protection of the Soviet army IS7 is the highest, and the ricochet is more, only on the front, the front of the US army T95 305mm is the highest, depending on the way you ask questions, you should not be very familiar with wot Then it is recommended that you go to the Soviet army.

The general defense of the American French system is relatively low, and the top German and Soviet vehicles, especially the TD class, are more outstanding, but they cannot be generalized, because each car has its positioning. In a comprehensive comparison, the Tiger, T95, Mouse, E75 and IS4 have excellent defenses. Of course, players are also required to pose at a certain angle to increase the chance of ricocheting, and if they blindly face the enemy head-on, it is very simple to be pierced.

Armored warfare is closer to real combat.

Armored War: The confrontation between the great powers has evolved into a war of the best people, and the junction of the spheres of influence of various countries has become an arena for brutal fighting. As a mercenary, you can choose between the N-series and the S-series (corresponding to the two major military blocs of NATO and Russia, respectively, and a less complete Chinese line), which include five categories: main battle tanks, armored destroyers, self-propelled guns, light tanks, and infantry fighting vehicles, which differ in mobility, defense, firepower, and visibility, and their specific roles are very similar to their roles on the real battlefield.

All players should do in the game is to use their strengths to contain and kill enemies as much as possible, while seizing key points on the map - and all of this is the basic norm of the vehicle simulation game created by World of Tanks.

Armored warfare vs. World of Tanks: The top design of the system brings n big advantages:

1.Balance 2Playability 3The data of armored warfare has a more realistic damage mechanism than World of Tanks, and there is basically no full damage through the top cover, unless the top cover bomb area like Challenger 1 will penetrate the full shell damage.

The World of Tanks model is delicate, but have you ever played with that model when you first came out of World of Tanks? Can you say that the vague model is delicate, how long has the armored war been out? If the two games come out at the same time, can the models be different and delicate?

At present, World of Tanks is closer to actual combat, because the two games are similar, but the model of World of Tanks (that is, the sense of picture) is more delicate, but it is said that the next version, that is, the version will change the strike ability of self-propelled guns, and become a buff auxiliary class of pure games, which is a bit self-destructing the Great Wall, it is estimated that a large number of players will give up the game, after all, everyone is playing from the perspective of actual combat, and the elements of pure games are too sad, and it feels like the rhythm of black technology.

Where does the blood bar game come from, if you want to get close to the actual combat to play War Thunder.

If you want realism, you have to play War Thunder. If you want a sense of competition in the game, you can play World of Tanks, armored wars and the like, and in terms of engine graphics, armored wars can kill World of Tanks in seconds. If the two are not high in terms of authenticity, then the data of armored warfare is more real than that of World of Tanks, and there is basically no situation of full damage through the top cover, unless the top cover of the Challenger 1 will penetrate the full shell damage.

It's more like a war thunderbolt.

It's all the same.,These two games are similar in essence and combat system.,There's no authenticity at all.,And it's both the kind of thing like the two thunder nets.**,I want to get close to actual combat to play the red pipe、Armed raid games。 I have to choose one of the two games you said.,Definitely choose World of Tanks.,Armored War, I'm idle and want to see how this game is.,As a result, as soon as I entered, I felt that the interface was set from World of Tanks.,After entering the battle, I always feel that the blood bar icon is so familiar.,I really don't want to say anything.。

Unconvinced, love whoever you want.