StarDestroyer.Net BBS

If they took out a tread, yes. That's about all they could do, though. And a good Abrams crew isn't going to let that happen; they've got the speed and the range to make sure it doesn't.

Shinova wrote:

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.

Much obliged.
Which means you just murdered some 50+ WW2 tank crews. The M1 can simply wait until the Shermans/Tigers are within range, start firing, and move to keep his distance.

Rogue 9 wrote:If they took out a tread, yes. That's about all they could do, though. And a good Abrams crew isn't going to let that happen; they've got the speed and the range to make sure it doesn't.

No doubt about that, but it takes only one lucky shot, the Golden BB. And the original question was rather open ended - and one which I didn't answer.

And of course the M1 can run out of ammunition as Consequences mentioned. It can also run out of gas and be pounded to death, even the DPU & Cobham armor can only take so many rounds - not to mention eventually there's going to be *some* spalling inside the M1 after enough hits.

I remember a friend of mine who is leading a german Leopard 2 squad and told me about one of his trainings. In this training an APC with a 30mm machine cannon was fireing to the side and front of the Leopard 2 and the tank operating system said:

"Hit by small weapons"

He also told me, that the Leopard 2 fornt armor is made for defending against a single 120mm AP shot the Leopard 2 can fire.

Tigers and shermans could only succeed if they come all at once and from different angles and they still have to hit the back of an Abram i think.

If they are in a close line the Abram tank could use his HE ammunition and blast several tanks at once or shoot through two tanks in a line with his AP ammo.

Shermans and tigers arent able to fire while driving and have defenitly some trouble with fast moving targets (the Abram can drive up to 40mph and the terrain was said to be flat with no obstacles)

On the other hand a Abram can easily target while driving and has no trouble targeting the sluggish WW2 tanks.

Antares wrote:I remember a friend of mine who is leading a german Leopard 2 squad and told me about one of his trainings. In this training an APC with a 30mm machine cannon was fireing to the side and front of the Leopard 2 and the tank operating system said:
"Hit by small weapons"
He also told me, that the Leopard 2 fornt armor is made for defending against a single 120mm AP shot the Leopard 2 can fire.
Tigers and shermans could only succeed if they come all at once and from different angles and they still have to hit the back of an Abram i think.
If they are in a close line the Abram tank could use his HE ammunition and blast several tanks at once or shoot through two tanks in a line with his AP ammo.
Shermans and tigers arent able to fire while driving and have defenitly some trouble with fast moving targets (the Abram can drive up to 40mph and the terrain was said to be flat with no obstacles)
On the other hand a Abram can easily target while driving and has no trouble targeting the sluggish WW2 tanks.

Well, the WW2 tanks could shoot on the move, it's just that their accuracy was horrible. They preferred to sit and shoot as you mentioned b/c that way they could hit pretty well.

Now the Leopard 2 tank that was hit with 30mm - were these live rounds or some simulation?

Well, let me add that I cannot imagine any western army training its personnel by firing live rounds at their crewed vehicles. Although it certainly would be ummm...

Interesting?

Fucked up. Yes, that's it.

EDIT - large caliber rounds, mind you.

Of course they were simulations, since it was a training. They tank team wouldnt have had such a good time if it were REAL shots of course.

He also said the 30mm bullets were std ammo and no depleeded uranium core or suchlike.

Cpl Kendall wrote: 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.

But then, modern 25mm and 30mm AP/APDS rounds have greater penetration than even the long-barreled 76mm gun used on the later Shermans (IIRC, the latest 25mm APDS rounds used by the Bradley can penetrate almost as deep as the Tiger I's 88mm KwK-36 gun). I'd hazard a bet that the only the 88mm KwK-43 gun used on the King Tigers and Ferdinands could possibly penetrate an Abrams from the side, and then only at close range. Of course, penetration is not the sole factor to determining damage. Obviously an 88mm round that penetrates the armor will do more damage to the tank's innards and crew than a 30mm round.

You people neglect the M-26 Pershing which could be very useful in hitting a moving target and 90mm should add more power than the 76.6mm cannon.

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

Proof of WWII APDS rounds, it's about halfway down the page.

Captain Lennox wrote:You people neglect the M-26 Pershing which could be very useful in hitting a moving target and 90mm should add more power than the 76.6mm cannon.

Well, I already mentioned the 88mm/L70 KwK-43 gun on the King Tiger and Ferdinand, which IIRC was more powerful than the 90mm M3 gun on the Pershing.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

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

Proof of WWII APDS rounds, it's about halfway down the page.

Conceeded. I guess what they say about sd.net is true-you learn something new every day (wether you want to or not)

Ma Deuce wrote:

Captain Lennox wrote:You people neglect the M-26 Pershing which could be very useful in hitting a moving target and 90mm should add more power than the 76.6mm cannon.

Well, I already mentioned the 88mm/L70 KwK-43 gun on the King Tiger and Ferdinand, which IIRC was more powerful than the 90mm M3 gun on the Pershing.

Yeah, conceded, but the Pershing can atleast fire while and moving omewhat better than the King Tiger.

Rogue 9 wrote: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...

Actually, it's only 40 rounds for the Abrams (usually 10 HEAT and 30 APFSDS).
EDIT: The 105mm-gunned versions (M1 and IPM1, which are no longer in service) could carry 55 rounds.

BTW, no one mentioned another advantage the Abrams would have: Thermal vision. The Abrams could lay a smokescreen (with smoke grenades or by injecting fuel into it's exhaust), and it's enemies would not be able to see it, but it could easily see them (only if it used the exhaust-smokescreen. The smoke grenades carried by an Abrams are phosphorus grenades, and thus would block thermal vision as well, as is their purpose). There is the problem that smokescreens usually don't last very long, especially if there are winds, and they take a bit of time to lay with only one vehicle.

Ma Deuce wrote: BTW, no one mentioned another advantage the Abrams would have: Thermal vision. The Abrams could lay a smokescreen (with smoke grenades or by injecting fuel into it's exhaust), and it's enemies would not be able to see it, but it could easily see them (only if it used the exhaust-smokescreen. The smoke grenades carried by an Abrams are phosphorus grenades, and thus would block thermal vision as well, as is their purpose). There is the problem that smokescreens usually don't last very long, especially if there are winds, and they take a bit of time to lay with only one vehicle.

Is there any proof that the Abrams can lay a screen with it's exhaust? It was my understanding that most NATO tanks cannot lay an exhaust screen, and only had their smoke grenades.

I think the armor of the Abrams is pretty irrelevent here. The Abrams can use it's superior speed to place distance between itself and the enemy, and pick off the other tanks from beyond their ranges. Why let the enemy test your armor when you don't have to?

And if I may add a new factor to the arguement, how about at night. How would the Abrams do in the other 12 hours?

Wicked Pilot wrote: And if I may add a new factor to the arguement, how about at night. How would the Abrams do in the other 12 hours?

I think it's safe to say that the Abrams would kick ass at night. I don't think that Shermans and Tigers have any night fighting capability. The Germans did have an infrared searchlight technology but it was mounted on Panther tanks and half-tracks. Besides the light would be picked up by the Abrams thermal imager and act like a beacon.

Cpl Kendall wrote:Is there any proof that the Abrams can lay a screen with it's exhaust? It was my understanding that most NATO tanks cannot lay an exhaust screen, and only had their smoke grenades.

Yes, it can. Here is a pic of one doing so...

NOTE: the tank in the pic is one of the original-model M1s (with the 105mm gun). You can tell by the drive wheels.

If we stipulate no resupply for each side, then the WWII tanks run out of fuel without catching the Abrams in all probability. If we allow resupply, then as long as the Abrams can continue to fall back, it can continue to kill WWII tanks until the machine breaks down.

consequences wrote:If we stipulate no resupply for each side, then the WWII tanks run out of fuel without catching the Abrams in all probability. If we allow resupply, then as long as the Abrams can continue to fall back, it can continue to kill WWII tanks until the machine breaks down.

Or until it runs out of Ammo. It's only got 40 rounds for it's main gun, and it's bound to miss at least a few times. A lucky shot could possibly take out two enemy tanks with one APFSDS round (if it goes through one tank and hits another), but this is extremely unlikely (however, it has happened in the past).

Ma Deuce wrote:

consequences wrote:If we stipulate no resupply for each side, then the WWII tanks run out of fuel without catching the Abrams in all probability. If we allow resupply, then as long as the Abrams can continue to fall back, it can continue to kill WWII tanks until the machine breaks down.

Or until it runs out of Ammo. It's only got 40 rounds for it's main gun, and it's bound to miss at least a few times. A lucky shot could possibly take out two enemy tanks with one APFSDS round (if it goes through one tank and hits another), but this is extremely unlikely (however, it has happened in the past).

The break down scenario was contingent upon a bunch of five tons being around loaded with fuel cans and extra rounds. Since the 2-fer kill that I've heard of was scored against T72s, it would probably be a great deal easier against WWII vintage vehicles. however, closing to the range where those sort of kills are plausible exposes the Abrams to unnecessary counterfire from its opponents. The best bet the Abrams has is to kill as many enemies as it can at range, then book it over the horizon, destroy the vehicle, and hide on foot.

One tank for every round of ammo the M1 has. Then one extra. That's how many.

Ma Deuce wrote: EDIT: The 105mm-gunned versions (M1 and IPM1, which are no longer in service) could carry 55 rounds.

Iirc many Guard and Reserve units are still stuck with M1 IPM1s

mind you at least it's not the question of howmany Stuka's IL-2. and P-38's are needed to kill an abrams, doubt that a 75mm shell comming in from above is going to make the yankee tanker's day....

Neither of those carried anything like a 75mm cannon. The largest weapon either ever carried was a 37mm, and the P-38 only packed a 20mm in production. Of course either could use rockets to potentially ruin the Abrams' day.

The only 75mm cannon ever carried by an aircraft was stuck in the nose of a B-25, to the best of my knowledge.