Jump to content

Timetravel and its ramifications ...


Recommended Posts

Hi all,

suppose I have a timetravelling device, take a modern tank ( may it be an Abrams, Challenger 2, T-72, Leopard 2, whatever ), and go back to WW2 -

would I have to fear anything from the tanks of this timeframe ? Would a Kingtiger or IS2 or M36 Jackson be able to kill my tank ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Scheer:

would I have to fear anything from the tanks of this timeframe ? Would a Kingtiger or IS2 or M36 Jackson be able to kill my tank ?

Besides a lack of parts for maintenance? I doubt it.

You have much more to fear from the impeding move to the general forum!

Hi mom!

Mace

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...I'm no expert, but in my opinion you need to be carefull in tis situiation. Modern tank tactics relies on destroy the enemy before he does and not on "who's got the thickest armour".

okok, the kind and fabricartion of the actually used armour is better than in WW2, but with the right ammunition, your tank'll be crap.

So: If you stand there with your Leo 2 without doing anything, I'll bet that at least a 88er or one of it's kinds (Koenigstiger, Jagdtiger) is able to destroy your tank.

But if you're going to defend yourself, you'll have less to fear, because or your superior view and spotting systems, and because you are faster.

Also, not even a JSII should be able to stand long againt modern tank weapons and ammunition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

Mobility kill, then gun hit

Only way to do that is on mass, but expect a lot of losses when taking on a modern AFV like an Abrams.

Modern AFVs do have quite an advantage in that they can hit with a high probability while on the move, can fight at night, can engage at far longer ranges, and should be able to defeat the armour of even the heavier WW2 AFVs.

Also, the reason why the 120mm is standard on modern AFVs is that lower calibres have a hard time achieving a frontal kill on a modern AFV.

Hence an 88mm will be struggling to achieve a frontal kill on a modern AFV (side or rear shot would be a different story however).

Mace

[ January 09, 2004, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: Mace ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

But a 75mm to the tracks is going to have the same effect on an M1 that it does on a T34. Once you stop it from moving it is only a matter of time before you can get around the armor. Plus with only 40 rounds an M1 isn't going to be shooting very long.

If you are prepared to risk the casualties you can prove that no tank is invulnerable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

But a 75mm to the tracks is going to have the same effect on an M1 that it does on a T34.

Try getting a track hit on a M1 while it's moving.

The M1 and most modern tanks are equipped to track a target while on the move, WW2 AFVs aren't.

And If you're lucky enough to get a mobility kill on a M1, try killing it before it kills you.

Mace

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the poster was just thinking in terms of gun vs. armor, not night vision, mobility, targetting, et cetera.

If memory servers, the frontal armor on an M1 is somethinng like 400mm, so obviously there is no WWII AT weapon that can touch it (well, I suppose 500 lb. bomb from an airplane would do), however I think the rear (and maybe sides?) are thin enough that some WWII weapons using tungsten would have a chance to penetrate. The top armor is also pretty thin, I think, so maybe a panzerfaust from a second story could ruin your day, too.

But the short answer is "no", you'd be as safe as you can be in combat. Consider the number of tank crew fatalities in the Gulf War (and it's exciting sequel!) vs. tanks from ten to thirty years later. I think it was zero, although I believe there were some injuries from a side shot. Someone who paid attention can probably elaborate...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern tanks are awesome; I don't think that any WWII gun can take them out from the front.

But still - immobilize and flank and they're still dead. Nothing american could take out the Tiger II from the front, and its gun could pretty much kill any allied tank - but 500 of them didn't win the war, or even cause much delay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The front armor on the M1 is closer to 600mm or about 2 feet.

Yes it might be hard to get a track hit on an M1 going flat out but then again where are we fighting. Here in Germany the only place an M1 is going to get over 20 mph is on the Autobahn. If you meet them in the desert then you will have to be very careful about where you want to engage, kind of like the Iraqis were with the ones they did manage to damage.

I've fought against the M1 and yes it is a bitch and a half to kill but it can be killed, even by a lowly BMP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion actually smile.gif

Something the US has learnt in Iraq is that a Bradly can penetrate an M1 from the rear and if hit in the right locations the side, so although they would be one mean beast to kill I dont think it impossible if hit in the right location.

I guess an interesting side note to this discussion is how a 25mm DU round from a bradley would compare to, say, a standard AP round from the Panthers 75mm?

Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by KwazyDog:

Interesting discussion actually smile.gif

Something the US has learnt in Iraq is that a Bradly can penetrate an M1 from the rear and if hit in the right locations the side, so although they would be one mean beast to kill I dont think it impossible if hit in the right location

Yes, sgtgoody said he was an Iraqi and fought against them. =)

Kitty

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Kitty:

Sgt. goody, if you're Nidan's squire how come you never post on Peng thread? =)

Kitty

Been on a self imposed exile till I have something worth saying...or something like that...kind of a vision quest.

And you don't have to go to Iraq to fight M1s, you can do it from the comfort of lovely and always sunny Hohenfels, Germany.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is that you would be safer but not immune. It only took a few days to figure out how to kill tanks when they first came out and there were specialized AT weapons within months. As long as the new wonder weapon doesn't win the war immediatly it is nearly always possible to figure out some way to counter it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Kitty:

So you're a terrorist then? I don't get it. =(

Kitty

Actually I have a license to kill from the U.S. Consulate in Munich. When the guards gave me my pocket-knife back they said I could kill people as long as it was off embassy grounds. When I get to L.A. next month all those reality TV shows are going to pay.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kitty:

So you're a terrorist then? I don't get it. =(

Kitty

Actually I have a license to kill from the U.S. Consulate in Munich. When the guards gave me my pocket-knife back they said I could kill people as long as it was off embassy grounds. When I get to L.A. next month all those reality TV shows are going to pay. </font>
Link to post
Share on other sites

Those hits would have to be VERY lucky.

Even 40mm high velocity APFSDS tungsten ammo has a tough job of getting through the side or rear of the Leo 2A5 S.

The Leo 2A5 S and Abrams are pretty much clones when it comes to armorthickness(pretty much the only thing that separates them are the electronics and that one runs on a gasturbine and the other on a diesel).

As for never getting above 20mph outside the autobahn... ROFL!!!!

Leo 2 does almost twice that off-road. I've seen it myself in the muddy fields and broken terrain of southerns sweden. And they can push it to go even faster.

It does 50mph or more on a road if I'm to believe the tankdrivers that I know...That is if you push it. Tracks arn't exactly suited to high speeds.

(EDIT: Officially it's off road average speed is just shortly above 25mph and it's on road speed about 40mph. But I've seen crazy tankers push their tanks to alot more)

Lets just say that as long as that tank keeps moving it's not going to be taken down by WWII weapons. And that is probally as long as the engine doesn't suffer a breakdown or it runs out of fuel. Lets see YOU try to hit the tracks of a target moving at 30mph with a sufficiently heavy weapon. It's difficult to say the least. A target moving at 30mph(3-D, lets not forget that the terrain that tank is moving on isn't exactly smooth as a road in most of the cases, so trailing isn't as easy) is even difficult to hit with an automatic rifle, much less an ATR or AT-gun. Maybe with a 20mm flak or something, but I doubt it.

WWII weapons were NOT suited to fighting a heavy tank that moved that fast and could fight on the move as good as it fights while standing still.

It could knock out ANY opposing tank at a distance of 3km. The AT-crews would not be used to facing a tank with IR sights, so they would be screwed as well. And if anyone got close enough to duke it out they would be die by the principle of 1 shot 1 kill while the Leo wouldn't even be likely to be hit at all, it's simply moving too fast. And even if they hit they wouldn't get through.

The only locale that you could stop it at would be in a cityfight, but you're not going to risk a superweapon in a cityfight where it's not suited. For that you got grunts.

But yes. It could be stopped eventually. By isolating it and hitting resupply and repair crews. It only has to break down once.

Though it would be harder than to stop a Tiger since the suspension and engine are alot more durable and it's not likely at all to get bogged down.

EDIT: As for the person who said that weapons to counter it would be developed in just a few months. I doubt it.

They were able to churn out those weapons because the enemy infact wasn't all that far ahead. It was merely a question of vision and not technology.

To catch up with 50 years of the fastest development in the known history of mankind is a completely different thing.

[ January 09, 2004, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: Big Demonic Bunny ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking an Abrams back in time would teach one lesson above all others: the importance of the logistical tail. Someone has already mentioned maintenance and parts, but fuel supply would rear its ugly head even more quickly. (Heck, even an M1 sitting still burns an astonishing amount of fuel.)

You would probably kill quite a few enemy vehicles, but pretty soon you would be a sitting duck for even an infantry squad to take out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...