PDA

View Full Version : winning the War



Billy_BigBoy
09-23-2007, 01:23 PM
Looking at the movie "the Final Countdown" I was wondering what force you would need to win WWII if you could pick any modern weaponsystem of today, not counting nukes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Can a platoon of M1's defeat the whole german armor or would I need more. And is a squadron of F-22's enough to counter the Luftwaffe?
When I see modern armies having great difficulties fighting small renegade groups of terrorists I think air and sea domination isn't the problem, but winning the war on land might be very, very hard if you haven't just millions of soldiers.
I think it would be easier if you haven't to occupy territory, but you only have to defeat the enemy, but what if they start a guerilla war?

Daiichidoku
09-23-2007, 02:01 PM
answer=teh mustang

na85
09-23-2007, 02:02 PM
A squadron of f22's probably wouldn't have enough missiles to take out the entire luftwaffe.

You'd probably need 2 squadrons, so that one could be fighting while the other was refueling and re-arming.

However, a handful of Los Angeles-class attack subs could certainly decimate the Kriegsmarine

Dtools4fools
09-23-2007, 02:04 PM
Supplies!

Two squadrons of Eurofighters would not have turned the tide for the Germans...

****

Billy_BigBoy
09-23-2007, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
Supplies!

Two squadrons of Eurofighters would not have turned the tide for the Germans...

****
That's what me bothers, supplies.
You will need a thousand missiles alone to stop an airattack on London. 1000/8 makes 125 aircraft... assuming a 100% kill rate

Jediteo
09-23-2007, 02:14 PM
The example of the M1 or any tank for that matter would be more a question of use. The modern MBT would excel in north afrika, but in the Bocages of Normandy or urban areas, the same problems that tanks had 60 years ago would still apply. I am pretty sure that a Panzerfaust or panzerschreck would be more than able to disable/destroy a modern tank. A modern army would have to face some serious problems if they would be put in a WW2 scenario. Modern weapons are built to combat modern opponents.
Also supplies are a problem, projections showed that one of the chief difficulties in a late cold war enounter was that weapons expenditure would be high. for example a maverick missile versus the 500lb bomb. Munitions nowdays are not produced in such a high quantity as 60 years ago

Platypus_1.JaVA
09-23-2007, 03:57 PM
I think you would be much better off to force some key historical events to your advantage. Like hiring a profesional hitman and send him back to the 20's to assasinate Hitler. Or indeed put two or three subs against the Japanese fleet wich was heading for Pearl Harbour. Or, how would the war have ended if a few apache's where able to support the paratroopers fighting at Arnhem?

carguy_
09-23-2007, 04:14 PM
The concept of war seems useless nowadays.Even if you manage after a long fight to get close to enemy`s HQ, they can use their nukes.Ofcourse, an army would try to totally disable the nuclear defence system at first but what if it fails?

DKoor
09-23-2007, 04:17 PM
I thought this thread was about P-51.

I see there's no much about that, so that said, I'm outta here.

VW-IceFire
09-23-2007, 06:05 PM
Interesting question actually. Good one to ask!

I've often wondered about this sort of thing. Imagine you had two squadrons of Eurofighters available and its the summer of 1940...would that be enough to completely stop the Luftwaffe? Given that the air defense system in place was pretty good for its time and the conventional aircraft of the time were sometimes able to intercept with enough time...the Eurofighters couple of minutes to 30,000 feet with no problem kind of performance along with their speed means they could cover most of 11 Group area without too much trouble.

I think the biggest problem would be keeping the planes going all the time and keeping them supplied with missiles and ammo for the gun. Probably wouldn't take much to put a Heinkel down with the 27mm Mauser (oh the irony).

As for tanks....hrmm....modern day MBT's are designed to absorb allot more damage and be allot more effective than their WWII counterparts. I think the average AT weapon would not work as well against an Abrams or similar type of well armored tank. In a straight up combat situation with a small group of Abrams...you could probably count on the M1's wiping out the entire enemy platoon without significant problems. Thats sort of assuming the fighting is done out in the open...like in 1991 Desert Storm a group of Abrams completely destroyed an Iraqi group that was either the same size or larger without loss.

But war seems to usually be more about supplies than the technology. If you have allot of supplies and can afford to wear down the opponent without loosing the war entirely then its just a matter of time.

BoCfuss
09-23-2007, 08:43 PM
A flock of F-22s wouldn't be the best solution, a gaggle of A-10s would be a far better option, fully loaded with bombs/rockets. Maybe rewire the thing to hold a zillion Aim 9Xs.

As far as tanks go, the M1 type tank would dominate. It would fight at night and cause havok.

Billy_BigBoy
09-24-2007, 04:25 AM
Indeed, focusing in major events during the war, these battles all can be won with modern equipment. Battle of Britain, D-day, Arhem, Africa, Ardennes, Atlantic, Pearl Harbor, if you have the supplies.

But the other major problem besides supplies will be, I think, ground domination. Modern armies are still not able to get full control of large areas. Look at Irak, Afganistan. That's the place where we will need lots and lots of manpower. And that's were we will encounter massive losses.

general_kalle
09-24-2007, 05:14 AM
a elite Combined force with Infanty, APC's suported by Jets and Choppers would do the trick.

relative big i think.
and of course UAV satalite observing.
and a good General

Whirlin_merlin
09-24-2007, 05:17 AM
Chuck Norris.

Chris0382
09-24-2007, 05:48 AM
Laser weapons that me may have secretly experimented with in IRAQ.

WN_Barbarossa
09-24-2007, 05:56 AM
Well Germany was defeated anyway, without Raptors, Warthogs and all those fancy stuff, so it's more interesting to think about what could have done Germany/Japan/Italy with modern weapons.

(Just imagine a cloud of german tank killer helicopters on the Eastern Front http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif)



Originally posted by Billy_BigBoy:
But the other major problem besides supplies will be, I think, ground domination. Modern armies are still not able to get full control of large areas. Look at Irak, Afganistan. That's the place where we will need lots and lots of manpower. And that's were we will encounter massive losses.

Some problems with this paragraph.
- not the western ones are the only modern armies. For example Saddam had full control over Iraq by killing tens of thousands.
- basically, in order to control a conquered are you need a very good propaganda and/or massacres
- as for massive losses, ATM about 3700 US soldiers were KIA in Iraq. Compared to the daily (!) losses in WW2, or to population of the USA that's not a huge number.
- conventional warfare and counterinsurgency are different type of ballgames. In the latter "Bribe 'em, nuke 'em or leave 'em alone!" is the rule, and the expensive, futuristic hardware is useless.

LW_lcarp
09-24-2007, 06:35 AM
Well if you had a platoon of M1 Abrams or any modern armour the opposing force would do the same thing as the shermans and cromwells did in there time period. Surrond them and hit em in their week points.

Also with a squadron of F-22 or eurofighters any aircraft when landing is at its most vulnrable.

So the enemy would adjust its tactics to defeat a better armed opponent

Friendly_flyer
09-24-2007, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by BoCfuss:
A flock of F-22s wouldn't be the best solution, a gaggle of A-10s would be a far better option,

I was thinking along the same lines. The A-10 has all the speed one would want in 1940. Imagine what a 1/10 second burst of that nasty canon would do to a Heinkel, not to mention the effect on moral of the Luftwaffe.

Monterey13
09-24-2007, 07:56 AM
A Tomahawk in every German supply depot and every airfield would have done massive damage.

The F-22's could clean up the rest.

ElAurens
09-24-2007, 08:05 AM
I doubt that any WW2 era anti tank weapon could scratch an Abrams. And Shermans surround them?

HAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No WW2 tank could catch an M1A2, which unlike WW2 tanks does not have to stop to fire it's main gun.

Also the M1 could engage at ranges and in weather conditions that were utterly impossible for WW2 tanks.

You guys crack me up some times.

JG4_Helofly
09-24-2007, 08:19 AM
What about some 88 ap hits in the rear of an abrams? Impossible to damage?

RK_Achilles
09-24-2007, 08:19 AM
If the ground troops had Apache and A-10 support, plus M-1's... It wouldnt be close.

As for waiting for F-22's to land before attacking..?? Like the F-22's wouldnt know they were there miles before they were within firing distance. It wouldnt be close. If the Allies had F-22's and the modern equipment that it has. I dont think a single F-22 would be lost to enemy fire. You have know its there to actually shoot at it.

The axis would get decimated from the air, and an insurgency type war would only have worked in Germany itself, not in the countries that were occupied by the axis.

If only the F-22's could have unlimited ammo...

Billy_BigBoy
09-24-2007, 09:22 AM
So the enemy would adjust its tactics to defeat a better armed opponent

That's what happens in every war.


What about some 88 ap hits in the rear of an abrams? Impossible to damage?

And that gives the Germans access to new technologies.


The axis would get decimated from the air, and an insurgency type war would only have worked in Germany itself, not in the countries that were occupied by the axis.

That's my conclusion too, Besides that, the German people itself were tired too of the war. In 1945 anyway.

Zoom2136
09-24-2007, 09:41 AM
Problem with todays fighter will be their higher speed... they are just to fast to engage a WW2 fighter... they would just as well fly pass it while being supersonic and whatch it fall apart...

While WW2 bombers would be dead meat OTOH...

luftluuver
09-24-2007, 09:42 AM
The Germans have their Leos.

Wasn't the gun on the Abrams of German origin?

LW_lcarp
09-24-2007, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
I doubt that any WW2 era anti tank weapon could scratch an Abrams. And Shermans surround them?

HAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yeah I bet there was a bunch of Germans sitting in the Tigers thinking the same thing.

HuninMunin
09-24-2007, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
The Germans have their Leos.

Wasn't the gun on the Abrams of German origin?

Yup.
http://www.deutschesheer.de/portal/PA_1_0_P3/PortalFiles/C1256F87004CF5AE/W272M928106INFODE/Foto-8_pub.jpg?yw_repository=youatweb

L44 Glattrohr / M256 smoothbore 120mm
The Leo above fires his L55 - but looks representative anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
This new long-barrel version is evaluated for the Challanger upgrade programm as far as I know.

Uncle_Stranger
09-24-2007, 11:01 AM
My choice would be Chuck Norris and Jack Bauer.

waffen-79
09-24-2007, 11:52 AM
to win ww2 FOR ANY SIDE with future weapons you'll need

2 squadrons of Mig-29
3 squadrons of Su-33
4 plattons of Leopards 2A6
1 brigade of SAS

all commanded by Gen. Bruce Willies

BE SURE!

JtD
09-24-2007, 12:31 PM
Considering the excellent recon and surveillance abilities of modern armies I'd probably take the satellites and a deep penetration bomber, kill the enemies leadership and ask the successor for surrender. If they didn't, I'd do it again and ask the next one in the row.

Abbuzze
09-24-2007, 01:06 PM
Modern Tanks without any aircover? Hmm I think no modern MBT would withstand a well placed 500kg AP bomb from a Ju87.

Bewolf
09-24-2007, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Considering the excellent recon and surveillance abilities of modern armies I'd probably take the satellites and a deep penetration bomber, kill the enemies leadership and ask the successor for surrender. If they didn't, I'd do it again and ask the next one in the row.

LOL!!!!


We have a winner! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ElAurens
09-24-2007, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by LW_lcarp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
I doubt that any WW2 era anti tank weapon could scratch an Abrams. And Shermans surround them?

HAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yeah I bet there was a bunch of Germans sitting in the Tigers thinking the same thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another unimformed, clueless response.

The Tiger was dreadfully slow, and had one of the slowest turret traverse times of any WW2 tank. Hence it could easily be outflanked by the lighter, faster Shermans. (about the only thing the Sherman had going for it).

The Abrams on the other hand is at least twice as fast as the fastest WW2 tank, has an insanely fast turret both in traverse and elevation and can track and kill multiple targets while on the move all before any WW2 tank would ever get within it's own firing range of it. The current Leopard would do just as well.

You need to let go of some of the myths of the Tiger son.

Billy_BigBoy
09-24-2007, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Considering the excellent recon and surveillance abilities of modern armies I'd probably take the satellites and a deep penetration bomber, kill the enemies leadership and ask the successor for surrender. If they didn't, I'd do it again and ask the next one in the row.

LOL!!!!


We have a winner! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd like to stick with that one too, but as we speak, these modern days with satellites and deep penetretion bombers there is still a very importent bad leader untraceable http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Airmail109
09-24-2007, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Interesting question actually. Good one to ask!

I've often wondered about this sort of thing. Imagine you had two squadrons of Eurofighters available and its the summer of 1940...would that be enough to completely stop the Luftwaffe? Given that the air defense system in place was pretty good for its time and the conventional aircraft of the time were sometimes able to intercept with enough time...the Eurofighters couple of minutes to 30,000 feet with no problem kind of performance along with their speed means they could cover most of 11 Group area without too much trouble.

I think the biggest problem would be keeping the planes going all the time and keeping them supplied with missiles and ammo for the gun. Probably wouldn't take much to put a Heinkel down with the 27mm Mauser (oh the irony).

As for tanks....hrmm....modern day MBT's are designed to absorb allot more damage and be allot more effective than their WWII counterparts. I think the average AT weapon would not work as well against an Abrams or similar type of well armored tank. In a straight up combat situation with a small group of Abrams...you could probably count on the M1's wiping out the entire enemy platoon without significant problems. Thats sort of assuming the fighting is done out in the open...like in 1991 Desert Storm a group of Abrams completely destroyed an Iraqi group that was either the same size or larger without loss.

But war seems to usually be more about supplies than the technology. If you have allot of supplies and can afford to wear down the opponent without loosing the war entirely then its just a matter of time.

British MBTs have been hit by Hellfires during friendly fire incidents and survived with only minor damadge

Warrington_Wolf
09-24-2007, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Zoom2136:
Problem with todays fighter will be their higher speed... they are just to fast to engage a WW2 fighter... they would just as well fly pass it while being supersonic and whatch it fall apart...

While WW2 bombers would be dead meat OTOH... I would imagine that an F-22, Eurofighter or any other modern fighter jet (F-15, F-16, Mig-29, Su-27 or Tornado F3) would start the fight in BVR (Beyond Visual Range). I would imagine that they would completely ignore the Me-109s and concentrate their missiles on the He-111s, Ju88s and Dorniers. They would most likely wipe out quite a few bombers before the Jerries even see the shooters.
Assuming that a squadron of Eurofighters are going to intercept a bomber force consisting of 120 bombers (10 squadrons of He-111s), the Eurofighter can carry 8 air-air missiles (2 short range AA missiles and 6 long range AA missiles). A single squadron of Eurofighters (12 fighters) would be carrying 96 missiles, the bomber force would be decimated because

1. The bombers would not have a RWR (radar warning reciever) so they would not have a clue if they are being "painted" by radar.

2. The bombers crews would probably not see the missile approaching, they might see missile smoke from an AIM7 but the AIM120 uses a fuel that doesn't produce smoke so spotting it would be unlikely.

3. A twin engine bomber (in our case a He-111, Ju88 or a Do17) would not be able to outmaneuver the missile, it may be able to "beam" the radar of the launching aircraft (in our case the Eurofighter) but the pilot would probably be able to restore the lock in seconds, or he would lock up another target.

4. The Eurofighter pilot can lock multiple targets at once and they would probably fire off several missiles at once, each missile tracking a seperate target.

5. If there are any bombers that are still heading for their targets (and if they are, they must be nuts), the Eurofighter could still pick them off with the cannon. The Eurofighter pilots would not need to slow down to use the cannon, because along with most modern jets it had a radar controlled gunsight displays a pipper in the HUD that shows precisely where the bullets are going to hit. This gunsight also means that it will be more accurate at longer ranges, making the chances of being PKd by a gunner on one of those bombers somewhat minimal. The cannon would also have a longer range and more destructive power than the guns on a typical German bomber.

6. The speed of the Eurofighters means that the pilots of the Me-109s wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting one in his gunsight for any amount of time (unless he is VERY VERY VERY LUCKY).

7. The speed of the Eurofigher means that they can just bug out when the bombers start turning back and so they don't even see the escort fighters.

Billy_BigBoy
09-24-2007, 02:19 PM
And another story: "four Abrams were disabled in a suspected friendly fire incident by Hellfire missiles."

And what about a roadside bomb, this one used to be an M1:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Billy_BigBoy/ex-M1.jpg

joeap
09-24-2007, 02:24 PM
I just want to take some hummers with chain guns back to some of the ancient world's battlefields. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

..or since this is fantasy back to Pellenor field near Minas Tirith, no oliphants will scare me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Airmail109
09-24-2007, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Billy_BigBoy:
And another story: "four Abrams were disabled in a suspected friendly fire incident by Hellfire missiles."

And what about a roadside bomb, this one used to be an M1:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/Billy_BigBoy/ex-M1.jpg

Our British MTBs have a lot more Chobham armor but are a lot lot slower

Brilliant for Iraq though

Guess for this kind of war you guys got the armor/speed ratio wrong

In one encounter within an urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The drivers sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by eight rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile, and was under heavy small arms fire for hours. The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after the repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident

We've lost one Challenger to a huge roadside bomb resulting in a single major injury to the driver...lost one leg

One when it was hit by another Challenger, and another when an RPG-29 was fired at it from short range with only minor injuries

88s would most likely to stuff all to a Challenger 2, perhaps a direct hit by an SC2000 would kill one

FPSOLKOR
09-24-2007, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Another unimformed, clueless response.

The Tiger was dreadfully slow, and had one of the slowest turret traverse times of any WW2 tank. Hence it could easily be outflanked by the lighter, faster Shermans. (about the only thing the Sherman had going for it).

The Abrams on the other hand is at least twice as fast as the fastest WW2 tank, has an insanely fast turret both in traverse and elevation and can track and kill multiple targets while on the move all before any WW2 tank would ever get within it's own firing range of it. The current Leopard would do just as well.

You need to let go of some of the myths of the Tiger son.
What good will do a speed to Abrams at the minefield (keeping in mind the amount of mines placed during WWII)? Once it lost it's tracks - its piece of ****.The only thing that can instantly win the war is a rain of A-bombs. I'd say 25 nukes (1-2 MT each) exploding simultaneouselly would be enough.

luftluuver
09-24-2007, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Aimail101:
Our British MTBs have a lot more Chobham armor but are a lot lot slower

Designed and built a piece of the test equipment for the Chally's FCS when I worked for CDC.

HuninMunin
09-24-2007, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LW_lcarp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
I doubt that any WW2 era anti tank weapon could scratch an Abrams. And Shermans surround them?

HAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yeah I bet there was a bunch of Germans sitting in the Tigers thinking the same thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another unimformed, clueless response.

The Tiger was dreadfully slow, and had one of the slowest turret traverse times of any WW2 tank. Hence it could easily be outflanked by the lighter, faster Shermans. (about the only thing the Sherman had going for it).

The Abrams on the other hand is at least twice as fast as the fastest WW2 tank, has an insanely fast turret both in traverse and elevation and can track and kill multiple targets while on the move all before any WW2 tank would ever get within it's own firing range of it. The current Leopard would do just as well.

You need to let go of some of the myths of the Tiger son. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, we all know that you love America and it's equipment but you make that one look to easy for the Abrams.
A good hit by a 88mm delivered by either a Tiger or a Flak 88 would do pretty serious damage to any modern MBT.
It's not like they reinvented the wheel.
I don't think any Abrams or Leo commander would call a fight against Tigers a walk in the park.

PS
"The current Leopard would do just as well".
Sorry to be a pain but I just have to say this for sake of completeness:
The Leopard to match the Abrams would be the A4 (and even then the Leo surpasses it seen from the overall package POV).
To say that the A6 could do "just as well" as the Abrams is a little well....understated.

Airmail109
09-24-2007, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LW_lcarp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
I doubt that any WW2 era anti tank weapon could scratch an Abrams. And Shermans surround them?

HAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yeah I bet there was a bunch of Germans sitting in the Tigers thinking the same thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another unimformed, clueless response.

The Tiger was dreadfully slow, and had one of the slowest turret traverse times of any WW2 tank. Hence it could easily be outflanked by the lighter, faster Shermans. (about the only thing the Sherman had going for it).

The Abrams on the other hand is at least twice as fast as the fastest WW2 tank, has an insanely fast turret both in traverse and elevation and can track and kill multiple targets while on the move all before any WW2 tank would ever get within it's own firing range of it. The current Leopard would do just as well.

You need to let go of some of the myths of the Tiger son. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, we all know that you love America and it's equipment but you make that one look to easy for the Abrams.
A good hit by a 88mm delivered by either a Tiger or a Flak 88 would do pretty serious damage to any modern MBT.
It's not like they reinvented the wheel.
I don't think any Abrams or Leo commander would call a fight against Tigers a walk in the park.

PS
"The current Leopard would do just as well".
Sorry to be a pain but I just have to say this for sake of completeness:
The Leopard to match the Abrams would be the A4 (and even then the Leo surpasses it seen from the overall package POV).
To say that the A6 could do "just as well" as the Abrams is a little well....understated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would do jack s**** except damage targeting sights etc, unless extremely lucky at short range and thats not even taking into account Reactive Armor...even a rear shot from 100m would do only minor damage

A basic RPG is a much more effective anti-tank weapon than the 88, only because an 88 would be using obsolete amuantition. Sure a HEAT 88mm round might do the trick, if in the right area. But they didnt exist

Airmail109
09-24-2007, 03:26 PM
In fact the whole idea of shooting at an Abrams with an 88 in a WW2 situation is the equivalent of attacking the Yamato battleship, with a 19th century Man-O-War

For example the armor on the turret of the M1A is most likely rated at 1000mm RHA against HEAT and the rear 400+mm RHA, and thats without reactive addon armor. An 88 can pierce 171mm of armor at 100m. That isnt even a HEAT round or Sabot round. So cut that in half for Chobham armor. Go figure.

Oh yes, T-72s were a walk in the park during both Iraq wars

ElAurens
09-24-2007, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
I don't think any Abrams or Leo commander would call a fight against Tigers a walk in the park.


You really need to do your homework better than this.

The Tiger would have zero chance. The Abrams or Leopard would simply kill the Tiger at long range with one shot... end of story.

HuninMunin
09-24-2007, 06:50 PM
Guys, you completely miss my point.
The relative performence difference between a Tiger and the top of the line modern MBTs is out of question.
I commented on ElAurens' conclusion from this "stats" ( paraphrasing: that a modern tank platoon would roll up any ww2 defense with ease).
Combat is never "easy".
Of course the 88 is insufficient to penetrate the Abrams turret armor - but that doesn't mean that an Abrams could take a defensive line with a number of paks by just driving through guns blazing.
Allow me to picture a little example:
The Sherman was ( on paper) immensly inferior to the Panther or Tiger - it's gun just not capable of penetrating it's armor on distances larger then 500 meters ( not the point - spare me a discussion) whilst it's opponents would inflict critical damages on ranges above 2 klicks.
Now replace the Sherman with the Abrams or Leo and you end up with the very same picture, only that it is the other way around.
Now would you agree that a Tiger crew fighting a couple of Shermans had a walk in the park?

@Aimail
Despite me running low on motivation to even talk about it; the assumtion that a 88mm shell fired from within 100 meters would only do minor damage to the Abrams is hilarious.
And the comment about the T-72s in Iraq is both disrespectfull and useless in this context ( other then a kind of polemic humor wich would also be misplaced).

fabianfred
09-24-2007, 07:02 PM
technology aside.....there are no winners in a war....only losers

Skoshi Tiger
09-24-2007, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Modern Tanks without any aircover? Hmm I think no modern MBT would withstand a well placed 500kg AP bomb from a Ju87.

Travelling at close to 50kph off-road it would take an exceptional pilot to hit the said M1 tank with any bomb without the aid of modern sighting equipment.

My tactics would be to dissable the tank with a mine, then concetrate the attack on the recovery crew!

ElAurens
09-24-2007, 11:32 PM
A Tiger fighting 2 (or more) Shermans would not be a walk in the park.

But 2 or more Tigers fighting an Abrams would not even be a contest for the Abrams crew, no matter the range. The Tigers would be lucky to get one (completely ineffective BTW) shot off.

But I'm through arguing this silly point with you sir, because it is painfully obvious you have no clue about the quantum leap in technology that the modern MBT represents over the technology of the WW2 tank. ANY WW2 TANK!

fordfan25
09-24-2007, 11:36 PM
GPS and night vision tech would go a LONG way to ending WW2 much much faster. how about modern radar controled gun torrents on b17s? M16 rifles instead of M1's.

fordfan25
09-24-2007, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
A Tiger fighting 2 (or more) Shermans would not be a walk in the park.

But 2 or more Tigers fighting an Abrams would not even be a contest for the Abrams crew, no matter the range. The Tigers would be lucky to get one (completely ineffective BTW) shot off.

But I'm through arguing this silly point with you sir, because it is painfully obvious you have no clue about the quantum leap in technology that the modern MBT represents over the technology of the WW2 tank. ANY WW2 TANK! agreed. the M1's abilty to see the enemy tanks at longer range by optics,nightvision,ect and its abilty to so acuretly fire while traveling at high rates of speed would make it near imposable for even 10 tigers to even hit it at any kind of range. now in say a city or urban area the gap would narrow a bit.

alert_1
09-25-2007, 02:26 AM
Modern tech would win hands down VERY easily: MLRS,CBU-97/B SFW, A10C, JDAMs,Excalibur 155mm, Phalanx 20mm rotary gun, M1A2 (fron armor equivalent to 1200mm HR steel!), TOW,AT4, Javelin and so on and so on. Morale of ANY WWII figter would drop below big 0...

Bewolf
09-25-2007, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
A Tiger fighting 2 (or more) Shermans would not be a walk in the park.

But 2 or more Tigers fighting an Abrams would not even be a contest for the Abrams crew, no matter the range. The Tigers would be lucky to get one (completely ineffective BTW) shot off.

But I'm through arguing this silly point with you sir, because it is painfully obvious you have no clue about the quantum leap in technology that the modern MBT represents over the technology of the WW2 tank. ANY WW2 TANK! agreed. the M1's abilty to see the enemy tanks at longer range by optics,nightvision,ect and its abilty to so acuretly fire while traveling at high rates of speed would make it near imposable for even 10 tigers to even hit it at any kind of range. now in say a city or urban area the gap would narrow a bit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I actually agree. The 88 was a very nice gun for its time, but there is a reason why no Tank nowadays would be taken seriously with such a gun. It really must be a lucky hit to cause major damage to a modern MBT like that. Everything else about modern MBTs capabilities has already been mentioned. So no, the Tiger would not stand much of a chance there at all.

LW_lcarp
09-25-2007, 04:35 AM
Yeah I forgot that the Germans where a bunch of mindless idiots and would "never" be able to adjust there tactics to defeat a problem such as an Abrams. And after it knocked out one would "never" study it and gain any information from it.

And as ElAurens said an Abrams could take out anything it faces. So the 30 or so PzIVs and PZVs wouldnt stand a chance.

A tank does NOT need to be burning and shells exploding in side it to be knocked out. No weapon site track blown off anything that makes it leave the battle means its out of commission

HuninMunin
09-25-2007, 04:37 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
A Tiger fighting 2 (or more) Shermans would not be a walk in the park.

But 2 or more Tigers fighting an Abrams would not even be a contest for the Abrams crew, no matter the range. The Tigers would be lucky to get one (completely ineffective BTW) shot off.

But I'm through arguing this silly point with you sir, because it is painfully obvious you have no clue about the quantum leap in technology that the modern MBT represents over the technology of the WW2 tank. ANY WW2 TANK!

So what part of
"The relative performence difference between a Tiger and the top of the line modern MBTs is out of question.
I commented on ElAurens' conclusion from this "stats" ( paraphrasing: that a modern tank platoon would roll up any ww2 defense with ease).
Combat is never "easy"."
should I explain in more detail?

Philipscdrw
09-25-2007, 04:59 AM
If the Germans had stuck to the rules and not captured France so fast, and then launched bombing raids on Britain from bases in Germany and possibly Denmark, they would have been decimated by radar-guided Hurricanes and Spitfires - no need for Eurofighters or ASRAAMs or anything like that. At least, that's what happened when Germany did send bombers against northern England from German airfields...

Skoshi Tiger
09-25-2007, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by LW_lcarp:
And as ElAurens said an Abrams could take out anything it faces. So the 30 or so PzIVs and PZVs wouldnt stand a chance.

The M1 carries about 40 rounds so I'ld say you'ld need at least 41 or so PzIVs and be using the burning wreakage and smoke from the first 40 to restrict the vision and movement of the M1 so the last one can get in REALLY close!


fordfan
M16 rifles instead of M1's.


I recon' there would be a few people on this forum that would disagree with you there! M1 rifle has a greater range and power, and for acurate shooting at range you'ld be shooting off single shots anyway! (Give me my SMLE any day! But then again I'm Australian http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

WN_Barbarossa
09-25-2007, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by fabianfred:
technology aside.....there are no winners in a war....only losers

Where did you read that?