Originally posted by snip
I'm intentionally leaving the caliber somewhat unknown, so its up to each to determine whether it was rigged or just a really big effing gun. (read as: I know I want a bigger gun for the supplement/successor to the Triarii, but not how big)
It was rigged: the target did not react according to the laws of physics.
The impact of a shell on a tank would not impart enough force to lift a tank off the ground in the fashion described - not unless the shell was much, much larger and carrying significantly more kinetic energy. And in the event it was, then the tank would not have been blown
upward, but
backward.
If the target tank had been filled with explosives, then it could have 'brewed up' - exploded - but in such a case, the hull would have channeled the blast out through the openings in the hull. This could have disconnected the turret and thrown it in the air, perhaps, but the hull would almost certainly have not gone flying. The direction of the venting explosion would have been upward. Further, the statement that the shell continued on to hit the second tank strongly implies that the tank had
not brewed up, because the shell fuse clearly malfunctioned and did not detonate the shell within the first tank as it should have. Therefore, any internal explosion would have to be ignited solely by the impact of the shell, and yet could not significantly alter the flight of the shell.
The most likely explanation is that the relevant explosion occurred
underneath the tank. A tank shell would not have had the explosive capacity to launch a tank in this fashion. Analysis would indicate an off-center explosion underneath the first tank; in other words, a large land mine, command-detonated underneath the vehicle.
Inductive reasoning, therefore, demonstrates that the first tank was destroyed by a rigged demo(lition charge).
As for the second tank, "folded up like a piece of paper", that is again behavior which defies the laws of physics. In order to 'fold up' as described,
the shell would not have penetrated the tank's armour, but instead imparted a low-velocity non-penetrating blow which deformed the armour on a massive scale. The sort of face-hardened armour used on tanks actually tends more towards the brittle than the pliable; therefore the shell
should have either penetrated and holed the armour, or cracked it. If the shell struck with enough force to deform the armour on this scale - even if it were in a pliable-enough sort of state, perhaps heated to a high temperature to achieve sufficient malleability - then the shell would have deposited enough kinetic energy into the target tank to throw it backwards. See the analysis of the first tank for why that's not possible.
All in all, rather a lot of possibilities for this one, since it's so unlikely a chain of events. The snarky side of me would critique what sort of armoured vehicle engineer would design a tank with armour so rubbery-pliable that it folds up when hit by another tank shell (which is similarly malfunctioning). I guess that's Italian quality for you!
But the most likely explanation is, again, rigged demo: perhaps the second tank was made of rubber and sections were designed to deflate when hit.
Summary: rigged demo. Ye canna change th' laws of physics!