Where is the weakest armor of the tank in general?

The weakest is neither the tail nor the top, but the bottom Generally speaking, because the tail of the tank is quite easy to attack in close combat, the thickness of the tail armor of modern tanks is basically the same as the side of the hull, about 60 to 80mm, and the thickness of the top is basically about 20mm, due to the use of various top taps, so many tanks are equipped with additional armor on the top of the turret and the upper part of the hull, and the thickness can be increased to more than 40mm, and more tanks are equipped with reactive armor on the top, and the thickness is equivalent to hundreds of mm of ordinary armor And only mines at the bottom of the tank can threaten In the face of the power of mines, armor below 60mm is difficult to defend against, so the tank basically gave up the bottom defense At present, the thickness of the bottom armor of most tanks is below 25mm, and some tanks will be equipped with armor in the front and bottom part of the hull in order to protect against mines, and the thickness can reach about 40mm, some tanks such as T-62 do the opposite, in order to save weight for other places, reduce the back half of the bottom armor to 15mm

What's in the tail! Make no mistake! The weakest point of the tank is the canopy part of the turret.

Think about it, all of you. How can the weak point be the chassis. Anti-tank mines appeared very early. It's so cheap. How could it be possible not to take precautions during the design of the tank.

There are too many tanks destroyed by the Javelin (Tap**) A10 attack aircraft. But how many are tanks that were completely destroyed by mines. Most of them were blown off their tracks and paralyzed and couldn't move.

The weakest is the top armor. However, due to the difficulties in development and manufacturing, the top attack ammunition is not as popular as other anti-armor**.

top, so there are specialized top-tapping missiles.

Leaving the plugin open indiscriminately will cause the system to crash. So let's talk about it briefly.

The weak point of all tanks is the obvious chassis. Hit here, light the engine was destroyed, and heavy burned. Here we are talking about tank weaknesses.

2. The second weakness is mainly the conning tower on the tank turret. Basically, the Russian style is very low, and the American and German weapons are more obvious. The main thing that hit there was that the observation window was damaged, and the commander was killed.

3. On the right side of the gun (facing the opponent's front), there is a small hole, if it can be penetrated, the scope will be broken. Or even kill the gunner.

4. There is a driving window on the right side of the body (facing the opponent).

5. The course machine gun on the left side of the hull will kill the general electromechanical crew after being hit.

6. When the opponent's car body is on the side, hitting the middle of the car body slightly behind will cause disaster or damage to the ammunition rack. Although there is only a very low chance of reimbursement to the opponent directly for ammo rack damage, the main purpose of ammo rack destruction is to make the opponent's reload more slowly.

7. At the junction between the turret and the hull, the turret will be stuck after the bullet is fired.

8. The barrel of the opponent's artillery is damaged if it is bad, and it is also injured if it is not played well, and it is accurately reduced.

9. The crawler will generally stop if it hits, and if it is a fast vehicle, it will even hit the steering.

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.

Since the thickness of the armor of the tank is different in each part, and because the type and model will vary, it is not possible to generalize. However, the armor at the bottom of the tank is 50mm thick, to say the least, and it will be different in different parts.

Here are a few examples of famous tanks:

The front and side armor of the Sherman tank was 50 mm thick, the front had a 47-degree bevel, which was equivalent to 70 mm of protection, and the sides had no bevel. The frontal armor of the turret was 88 mm thick.

The "King Tiger" was designed as standard with 150 mm thick armor, and the hull and turret had an inclination angle, which was extremely protective performance, and the 75 mm anti-tank guns commonly equipped with the Allies at that time could only penetrate it at zero distance.

Although the Pershing T26E3 also has heavy armor at the front, it is far from the "Tiger King" and only reaches the "Tiger" level, but it is also reasonable from the assumption that it was originally developed for the "Tiger" crisis. However, to the "Pershing" T26E4, due to the welding of two 30-40 mm thick steel plates in the front part of the hull, the front part of the turret is also installed with an additional 80 mm shield, and the front part of the turret is additionally mounted with armor plates to protect the sides, so that the frontal armor of the T26E4 Super Pershing turret reaches 152 mm, the front upper armor of the hull is 122 mm and has a 46-degree inclination, and the front lower armor of the hull is 96 mm. Such armor protection reached the level of the same level as the "King Tiger".

The development of the T34 combat vehicle is the inheritance of the BT series of fast combat vehicles, the weight at that time was tons, the hull shell is composed of welded steel plates, so the armor thickness is not very hard, but the use of a revolutionary "inclined plane" combat vehicle design, with its good inclination angle to make up for the lack of armor thickness, has a great impact on the development of combat vehicles in various countries in the future, compared with the classic of the same period - the German "Tiger" heavy tank, firepower and armor protection performance T-34 can not be compared, However, later modifications greatly strengthened the armor-piercing ability of the main gun, and thickened the armor of important parts such as turrets.

The armor on the leopard's head is 80mm, but because of the 55-degree inclination, it is equivalent to the vertical armor of the tiger type 140mm, and the "surface penetration technology" is used to penetrate carbon into the surface of the armor to a depth of 10%, which greatly improves the hardness of the armor.

It's the King Tiger Leopard 2 replicating the T-34 but not much better than the T-34 Although the King Tiger is flat armor but very thick.

The thickness of the front armor of the King Tiger reached 185 mm, and the upper armor of the head was 150 mm

The Sherman frontal armor is 51mm, counting the inclination angle of 70mm, the early 37mm behind the side and the 88mm front of the late 51mm turret should be the same as the body.

The front of the King Tiger is 150mm thick, the tilt angle is 230mm, the side is only 80mm, and the back is only 80mm (why is it so brittle).

e50 I forgot.

The T34 is 45mm thick on the front, 90mm on the sides, about 40mm on the sides, 80mm on the front, 140mm on the front, 50mm on the sides, and 40mm on the back (including the angle of inclination).

The front of Stalin II seems to be 120mm

King Tiger and Leopard 2's are similar. Stalin's motivation was strong.

The main differences are:

The weight is different, and tanks, even light, are generally in tens of tons.

Tanks are generally equipped with large-caliber guns, generally 120 or 125mm, while armored vehicles are generally only equipped with small-caliber rapid-fire guns, and some armored vehicles can also be equipped with anti-tank **.

Tank armor is thick, generally up to hundreds of millimeters, while armored vehicles are no more than a few tens of millimeters.

Tanks are generally tracked, while armored vehicles are tracked and wheeled, and there are also a combination of tracked and wheeled.

Definition of armored vehicle: It is a variety of tracked or wheeled military vehicles with armor protection, and is a general term for military or police vehicles equipped with armor.

Definition of tank: It is a tracked armored combat vehicle with strong direct firepower, high cross-country mobility and strong armor protection.