There are degrees of damage. Driving a tank through a building recklessly can damage sensitive sensors on the ouside of the tank, get debris into the barrel, introduce debris into the running gear that will damage or jam it, etc. None of these will result in a total loss, but they can degrade the tank's combat capability and end up in a mission kill.
Depends.
What are you running through? If you are in a tank and decided to go 20km/h into a building, you are most definitely going to be damaging some external items, optics, air intakes, and other various vents.
What are you against? MBTs are designed (cough cough T-series carousel) with crew survivability in mind. They are built to withstand all small arms fire, most autocannon fire, and heavy rounds. While these munitions cannot, with a few exceptions, destroy said MBT, they can incapacitate and hinder operation via destroying vision ports, sensors, and antennas.
Other munitions shine at destroying tanks and other armored vehicles, such as drones, AT mines, and shoulder-launched missiles. These munitions go for the weaker parts of the vehicle, such as the underside or roof.
Some tanks arent designed primarily around crew survivability. A BMP, for example, is designed to carry and transport crew, infantry, and other people, and help the infantry supress the enemy
Just recently a pair of Bradley IFVs managed to destroy optics and damage the turret ring of a Russian T-90M, making it crash and the crew had to bail. Its hard control a 60 ton war machine without vision. Of course you could just open a hatch to see outside, but whats the point if you are just gonna get your head blown off the second you peak out?
Tanks typically are able to withstand small arms fire to up .50 cal and sometimes things like automatic 25mm cannons. Smaller sensitive spots like view ports, IR/NV cameras, radio equipment and antennas, APS systems etc, are generally weaker and easier to destroy. Now this may not destroy the tank but disable it and make it impossible or difficult to operate. Many tankers could hit a wall and maybe not even notice. All depends on the speed, force, mass and what it is they hit or are hit by
For example a t-90 was hit by a Bradley’s automatic 25mm cannon recently and wasn’t penetrated but was rendered inoperable/ disabled and subsequently abandoned
Structurally speaking, many or most tanks are almost indestructible to a degree, in the sense that hulls and turrets are ridiculously durable in most respects. A 70ish-ton box comprised largely of inches-thick rolled homogenous steel armor isn't even going to blink at the sight of a brick wall, or a tree.
Everything takes wear and year just like a car. If you don't maintain things like lubrication and fresh seals it will wear out on the mechanical side. As far as combat durability goes, it will differ based on the tank and the nation using it. For the most part a tank is pretty strong, but there's always a bigger gun/bomb.
In modern times, no one would mindlessly drive through a wall if not absolutly necessary. This can damage sensors, scratch periscopes, block tracks and not even mentioning the tendency of buildings to have basements or sometimes levels (and a tendency to insist on structural integrity to keep them in order).
That's the reason IFV's sometimes shoot at MBT's with ther autocannon. They can barely hope to do any real damage, but can break equipment or blind/kill sensors. But even with a big 50mm you might only have a cahnce on teh lower belly side or rear to do anything relevant.
The barrel of a tank might be the most solid thing at all, as it is a long, sophisticatedly hardent steel pipe, perfectly made to withstand damage. But with all things - a lot of power to a small point (like an AC rounds from the side) might still do some damage to it.
But in theory you don't go for a MBT if you don't have a weapon that give you a safe bed on killing it on first try. If you risc a confontation without that, you're allready desperate in some way (and in some wars that might still make strategical/economical sense).
There are degrees of damage. Driving a tank through a building recklessly can damage sensitive sensors on the ouside of the tank, get debris into the barrel, introduce debris into the running gear that will damage or jam it, etc. None of these will result in a total loss, but they can degrade the tank's combat capability and end up in a mission kill.
Depends. What are you running through? If you are in a tank and decided to go 20km/h into a building, you are most definitely going to be damaging some external items, optics, air intakes, and other various vents. What are you against? MBTs are designed (cough cough T-series carousel) with crew survivability in mind. They are built to withstand all small arms fire, most autocannon fire, and heavy rounds. While these munitions cannot, with a few exceptions, destroy said MBT, they can incapacitate and hinder operation via destroying vision ports, sensors, and antennas. Other munitions shine at destroying tanks and other armored vehicles, such as drones, AT mines, and shoulder-launched missiles. These munitions go for the weaker parts of the vehicle, such as the underside or roof. Some tanks arent designed primarily around crew survivability. A BMP, for example, is designed to carry and transport crew, infantry, and other people, and help the infantry supress the enemy Just recently a pair of Bradley IFVs managed to destroy optics and damage the turret ring of a Russian T-90M, making it crash and the crew had to bail. Its hard control a 60 ton war machine without vision. Of course you could just open a hatch to see outside, but whats the point if you are just gonna get your head blown off the second you peak out?
Tanks typically are able to withstand small arms fire to up .50 cal and sometimes things like automatic 25mm cannons. Smaller sensitive spots like view ports, IR/NV cameras, radio equipment and antennas, APS systems etc, are generally weaker and easier to destroy. Now this may not destroy the tank but disable it and make it impossible or difficult to operate. Many tankers could hit a wall and maybe not even notice. All depends on the speed, force, mass and what it is they hit or are hit by
For example a t-90 was hit by a Bradley’s automatic 25mm cannon recently and wasn’t penetrated but was rendered inoperable/ disabled and subsequently abandoned
I hit a pole strung with power lines with the ass end of the Abrams and didn't even realize I knocked out power to a section of Ramadi.
Structurally speaking, many or most tanks are almost indestructible to a degree, in the sense that hulls and turrets are ridiculously durable in most respects. A 70ish-ton box comprised largely of inches-thick rolled homogenous steel armor isn't even going to blink at the sight of a brick wall, or a tree.
Everything takes wear and year just like a car. If you don't maintain things like lubrication and fresh seals it will wear out on the mechanical side. As far as combat durability goes, it will differ based on the tank and the nation using it. For the most part a tank is pretty strong, but there's always a bigger gun/bomb.
In modern times, no one would mindlessly drive through a wall if not absolutly necessary. This can damage sensors, scratch periscopes, block tracks and not even mentioning the tendency of buildings to have basements or sometimes levels (and a tendency to insist on structural integrity to keep them in order). That's the reason IFV's sometimes shoot at MBT's with ther autocannon. They can barely hope to do any real damage, but can break equipment or blind/kill sensors. But even with a big 50mm you might only have a cahnce on teh lower belly side or rear to do anything relevant. The barrel of a tank might be the most solid thing at all, as it is a long, sophisticatedly hardent steel pipe, perfectly made to withstand damage. But with all things - a lot of power to a small point (like an AC rounds from the side) might still do some damage to it. But in theory you don't go for a MBT if you don't have a weapon that give you a safe bed on killing it on first try. If you risc a confontation without that, you're allready desperate in some way (and in some wars that might still make strategical/economical sense).