It's time for a ludicrous hypothetical question

[Liddell-Hart]

If you had a time machine and took a couple of divisions of modern battle tanks like T90, Challenger2, Abrams or Merkava back to WW2, would they be unstoppable by the weapons of the time? I'm assuming that weapons development would not change a jot in response to this wonder weapon obviously.

[flamingknives]

they'd do well until someone worked out that the best way to defeat them would be to target the much more vulnerable supply chains.

In tactical combat, they would always see, target, hit and destroy the enemy first, while only 88s from the rear at close range would prove effective in return. IEDs and aircraft bombs would have the potential to do some serious hurt too. The real problem would be accumulated damage, unless one was to take back avery large amount of spares.

[Sergei]

Well, a couple of divisions of modern battle tanks would be hard to stop even with modern weapons, so yes, they'd be quite unstoppable. Of course, they wouldn't be indestructible - you would use a fleet of B-17's or such to blow them up if needed. But if a part of otherwise strong combined arms force, they would definately give an edge with all their night vision equipment etc.

[Corvidae]

given that the modern tanks you mentioned have only been used against poorly trained peasant conscripts, hastily raised bands of freedom fighters, and illiterate tribesmen,, and still have been showen to be vulnerable,, i would say that the heer could stop them easily enough, any coordinated counter attack, no mater how poorly armed, can find a weakness in the attackers forces,

[Zarquon]

Imagine fighting a Tiger in CMBB, 1942. As the Russian player you don't have anything that can kill it frontally.

Now imagine a Tiger with 80%+ hit chances, even while moving, a 1500 hp engine and thermal-sight night vision equipment.

Perhaps a late-war 128mm gun hit to the side or rear could kill it. And you could still stop it with an AT mine or damage the tracks with direct fire but that's it. Basically, you're screwed.

The result is that you as the defender are forced to develop new tactics.

In the Onion Wars CMBB campaign

http://www.onionwars.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl, the green team began to field Tigers and won almost every tank battle from that on. Tigers in 1942/1943 rule everything in sight. After two turns of suffering, the pink team suddenly responded by switching to night attacks where a Tiger cannot rule more than its immediate surroundings. And pink SMG troops overran green positions while the fearsome, extremely expensive Tigers stood nearby. Ouch. So much for getting cocky.

The lesson for us was that super-weaponry is good for a couple of easy victories, until the enemy adapts to the new circumstances.

[Bone_Vulture]

No-one has mentioned yet the problem of maintenance...

Future fuel, spare parts, ammunition, plus electronics that wouldn't be available for several decades. The future tank division would simply break down after the initial success.

[Cthulhu Dreams]

Or, you could get a bunch of 25MM AA guns, and fire at it lots

[Steiner14]

Immobilizing works always. Without infantry-cover, then it is almost dead.

[murphus]

I agree with the first comments. The 90s-generation tanks would simply destroy anything in their path. An armored division, even now, has infantry cover. These would also serve to protect the supply line.

Put it another way: what would a 1943 armored division do in WW1? Destroy everything in sight, be invulnerable, then move on for more.

[flamingknives]

A '43 armoured division would singularly fail to cross the opposing trench line. The attack would fail at the enemy's front line trench. They would only be successful in a maneuver battle, not in the static phase.

[flamingknives]

I guess I ought to explain that last. '43 tanks were designed for general cross-country mobility, while WWI tanks were intended for crossing severely broken terrain and trenches.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

I guess I ought to explain that last. '43 tanks were designed for general cross-country mobility, while WWI tanks were intended for crossing severely broken terrain and trenches.

Er...How did you get on to WW I?

Michael

[flamingknives]

Reply to murphus' post.

[Michael Emrys]

Oh. Okay.

Michael

[David I]

What if the Aztecs had 500 modern hand grenades and were taught to use them? They would certainly disrupt the Spanish musket & pike formations and crush any cavalry charge! The history of Europe and the Americas would be totally different! :eek:

Sorry, the gin is speaking.

Maybe I should try the Peng Thread.

DavidI

[ December 22, 2004, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: David I ]

[Philippe]

Unlikely. How you fight tends to be heavily informed by your culture and your society's agendas, and very high on the Aztec agenda was taking prisoners alive to be used for human sacrifice. That's why they were always at a disadvantage in combat with Europeans who seemed to give personal survival by killing as many of the enemy as possible a very high priority. And don't forget that the Spaniards were backed up by thousands of the Aztecs' enraged former subjects who were sick and tired of feeding the Mexican human sacrifice machine. One of the interesting things about reading Bernal Diaz is that the sheer horror that he felt when walking into Aztec temples gets transmitted across the centuries -- a bit like rolling into Auschwitz in '45.

[David I]

Philippe,

Ah curses, foiled again! (twirl of mustache, snear, cape held up to face level, exit stage right)

DavidI

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by Philippe:

Unlikely. How you fight tends to be heavily informed by your culture and your society's agendas, and very high on the Aztec agenda was taking prisoners alive to be used for human sacrifice. That's why they were always at a disadvantage in combat with Europeans who seemed to give personal survival by killing as many of the enemy as possible a very high priority. And don't forget that the Spaniards were backed up by thousands of the Aztecs' enraged former subjects who were sick and tired of feeding the Mexican human sacrifice machine. One of the interesting things about reading Bernal Diaz is that the sheer horror that he felt when walking into Aztec temples gets transmitted across the centuries -- a bit like rolling into Auschwitz in '45.

Here and I thought I was the only one to have read A True History of the Conquest of New Spain.

What also gets translated down through the centuries was the conquistadores casual indifference toward slaughtering the natives. I was particularly struck by one passage where del Castillo describes using body fat taken from a recently slain native to grease down his sword.

Given how things turned out, I often wonder if the Tlaxcalans finally regretted overthrowing the Aztecs for the Spanish, in the end.

[General Bolt]

But how would an armored division do against the Aztecs?

The athletic director at San Diego State is going to be happy about any damned armored division at Qualcomm Stadium.

[Stan Hope Park]

One of my buddies once used Steel Panthers to pitch a circa-1945 SS Panzer division against Israeli armour. He ran a series of experiments using 1950s, '60s, '70s and '80s Israelis but did not use any projected post-1945 or real post-1955 German equipment.

The Israelis always won. The Tiger IIs stood some chance in the early trials but after the Merkava arrived the SS didn't stand a chance. He said that the Israeli infantry always did well too, but I can't remember why. Neither can I remember how early Centurions did against Panthers.

Now why doesn't Combat Mission allow experiments like this?

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by CSO_Talorgan:

He said that the Israeli infantry always did well too, but I can't remember why. Neither can I remember how early Centurions did against Panthers.

Now why doesn't Combat Mission allow experiments like this?

Perhaps because the Israeli troops were armed with modern assault rifles and SMG's?

And the reason... Uh, you do understand the effort it takes to code realistic-as-possible armor values for some hundred vehicles? Attempting to model even semi-modern armor to this batch would be a whole new game.

[David I]

General Colt,

Spoken like a San Diego resident.

DavidI

[Stan Hope Park]

Perhaps because the Israeli troops were armed with modern assault rifles and SMG's?

I think you have it. The spell of the MG 42 would have been broken by FN MAGs. Galils would be better than G 98s.

And the reason... Uh, you do understand the effort it takes to code realistic-as-possible armor values for some hundred vehicles?

Are modders incapable of this?

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by CSO_Talorgan:

Are modders incapable of this?

For now, it appears that all model / armor value data is hardcoded, and only adjustable by the Battlefront production crew.

The only modding I've witnessed so far is the kind you see almost daily on these forums; the creation of improved / alternate model skins. Perhaps the Battlefront crew will consider the option of making the next CM engine more moddable: how much coding effort this would take, I do not know.

[General Bolt]

Originally posted by David I:

General Colt,

Spoken like a San Diego resident.

DavidI

Former SD resident. But always an SD atheltic supporter!!