How many WW2 tanks to take down an Abrams?

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-04-23 03:49am

How many Shermans and Tigers would you need in a relatively flat environment to take down one modern M1A2SEP Abrams?

EDIT: the WW2 tanks are crewed by soldeirs from the WW2 era. The Abrams is crewed by today's people. Both side's people are the best in their game.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-04-23 04:28am

Well from what I understand it took 4 or 5 Shermans to fight a Tiger and then they still couldn't shoot through the Frontal Armor of the Tiger tank.

Could a Sherman even dent a Abram?

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2004-04-23 04:54am

Ehh all of them?

The only thing that would hurt an Abrams is a lot of rounds hitting it and giving the crew a serious headace, or perhaps a flamethrower to ignite the fuel?

I would thing that the unprotected stuff like prisms and laserrangefinders would be the first casulties.

Not a tank buff so I might be wrong.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-04-23 05:25am

Cool, then we have an answer, an British Crock. varient Flame tank.....

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2004-04-23 06:30am

More than 60. After that, the Abrams shouldn't be carrying any more ammo IIRC, so unless the Abrams can encourage Blue on Blue incidents, it will be unable to appreciably harm its opponents after that point.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-04-23 10:33am

Only 60 shells?

Need to read up on tanks some more if I'm going to be in HAB; most of my knowledge is in aircraft...

Robert Walper · Post by **Robert Walper** » 2004-04-23 10:43am

Let me get this straight...a modern M1A2SEP Abrams tank would be virtually immune to firepower of the enemy tanks in question?

I find that extremely impressive...if true.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2004-04-23 12:53pm

After running outta ammo it could run around ramming enemies till it ran outtta gas.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-23 01:04pm

No, but it could run away. An Abrams is probably twice as fast as a Sherman. So the Abrams should immediately attempt to disengage, then pick off the Shermans at its leisure.

With resupply a reasonable distance away, the Abrams could essentially fight till the crew fell asleep.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-04-23 01:12pm

Faram wrote:Ehh all of them?

The only thing that would hurt an Abrams is a lot of rounds hitting it and giving the crew a serious headace, or perhaps a flamethrower to ignite the fuel?

Unlikely. From what I understand, M1 Abrams tanks use a gas-turbine engine to power them, which means they use jet fuel. Now I'm not an expert on the particular blend they use, but if it's anything like airplane Jet A, you can't just throw a match on it (or even hit it with a flame thrower) and expect it to ignite. This is of course ignoring the fact that I'm sure the fuel tanks are quite well protected.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-04-23 01:14pm

The Kernel wrote:
Faram wrote:Ehh all of them?

The only thing that would hurt an Abrams is a lot of rounds hitting it and giving the crew a serious headace, or perhaps a flamethrower to ignite the fuel?
Unlikely. From what I understand, M1 Abrams tanks use a gas-turbine engine to power them, which means they use jet fuel. Now I'm not an expert on the particular blend they use, but if it's anything like airplane Jet A, you can't just throw a match on it (or even hit it with a flame thrower) and expect it to ignite. This is of course ignoring the fact that I'm sure the fuel tanks are quite well protected.

If you had napalm which burns at 5000 degrees C then coated the tank in that stuff, either the engine would die or the fuel and ammo would cook off, provided the crew inside aren't roasted first.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-04-23 01:39pm

the 75 mm gun on an M4 Sherman would do little to nothing to the choblam armor of an M1A2SEP. Even the tank destroyer variant with a 90MM gun wouldn't be of much use, and those would be ripped apart by heavy machinegun fire. Tigers are even slower than Shermans, and their firepower advantage over the Shermans (88mm vs 75mm) wouldn't due them a bit of good.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2004-04-23 02:52pm

What about a direct hit against the sides of the M1's barrel? Dent it just enough to render it useless. I remember a german tank commander did this after finding his shells bouncing off a russian tank.

What about attacking the M1s treads, firing smoke, then getting the sherman tank crews out of their tanks for an infantry attack?

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-04-23 03:00pm

Unclassified specifications for the M1.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-04-23 03:26pm

What about just shooting rear/side armor?

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-04-23 03:44pm

Well purhaps those old Ma Dueces ccould get some work after all, but for peppering the top/rear with .50 fire, your better off with Desert Rat jeep swarms....

hmm, should we have the battle take place in France, the Ardennes, Iraq, or The deserts of North Africa?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-04-23 03:50pm

The Kernel wrote: Unlikely. From what I understand, M1 Abrams tanks use a gas-turbine engine to power them, which means they use jet fuel. Now I'm not an expert on the particular blend they use, but if it's anything like airplane Jet A, you can't just throw a match on it (or even hit it with a flame thrower) and expect it to ignite. This is of course ignoring the fact that I'm sure the fuel tanks are quite well protected.

First of all, even though the engine is a gas-turbine it burns Diesel fuel. That is to simplify logistics.

Second, the Abrams isn't invulnurable. The side and rear armor is weak compared to the armor on the front. The Shermans and Tigers could definatly kill it from the rear and most likely on the side as well. If I recall correctly the side armor is only proof against 30mm cannon fire.

Third, it depends on the type of shell being fired at the Abrams. The Abrams armor was primarily designed to defeat HEAT rounds so APDS rounds may be more effective against the side and rear armor.

Edited: Added #3

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2004-04-23 03:52pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:the Ardennes

Let's say there!

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-04-23 04:11pm

Abrams uses JP8, IIRC, not diesel.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2004-04-23 04:31pm

10,000 T-34s, Shermans, and Tigers especially piling on top the Abrams could do it.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2004-04-23 04:40pm

I'll say 6 shermans, 2 tigers, 4 czech T-35s, 1 canadian
sexton, and 2 hungarian 41M Turan II tanks.

*shrug*

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-04-23 04:53pm

Cpl Kendall wrote: Third, it depends on the type of shell being fired at the Abrams. The Abrams armor was primarily designed to defeat HEAT rounds so APDS rounds may be more effective against the side and rear armor.

Err, I'd like some proof on WW2 tanks using APDS rounds, please.

On topic, I would request more info about the scenario before I make a decision.
Does everyone start within WW2 effective range? If so, how are all involved parties positioned?
If not, does the M1 have the option of staying out of WW2 effective range? Because if he does, he can kill his opponents with impunity until running out of ammo.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-04-23 05:10pm

Batman wrote:On topic, I would request more info about the scenario before I make a decision.
Does everyone start within WW2 effective range? If so, how are all involved parties positioned?

If not, does the M1 have the option of staying out of WW2 effective range? Because if he does, he can kill his opponents with impunity until running out of ammo.

The two parties start at slightly beyond the Abrams' maximum range. The WW2 tanks start at one side of an imaginary line and the Abrams in the other.

CRUCIBLE · Post by **CRUCIBLE** » 2004-04-23 05:18pm

I really depends on the starting locations of the involved tanks.

Should two or more WW2 tanks start on the rear of the Abrams in effective range, the M1 is scrap metal, unless the crew is lucky, but as was stated, all crews are top notch.

This would only count if the WW2 tanks work as team, but i guess this is given.

Despite the myths of invulnerability of modern tanks against WW2 tanks, the rear is not very good armored.

I have seen what 20mm cannon fire (Marder) has done to an undamaged T-72 hull (reckon, only to the sides). The Marder scored a gap after 3 seconds of firing.

And yes, i know. The 20mm cannon shells have a higher RoF and v/0max AND are APDS. But nonetheless, Shermans and Tigers pose a real danger to the rear of any modern tank.

willburns84 · Post by **willburns84** » 2004-04-23 05:46pm

I'm not an expert in tanks (or in large scale military formations either apparently), but I'm willing to bet that one or two hits from even a Sherman's 75mm would immobilize or at least lessen the mobility of any variant of the M1. That would help narrow the odds in favor of the WW2 armour, with the M1 being stationary or at least very sluggish.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

How many WW2 tanks to take down an Abrams?

How many WW2 tanks to take down an Abrams?

Abrams

Re: Abrams

Re: Abrams

Re: Abrams