User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 10:07:12 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the tigers are moving, slowly, the Abraham’s are moving quickly. With gun stabilization and tts that sees through the smoke etc. Tigers are fucked Read about 73 Easting Not TTS but TIS but yes I get the point. Are we talking attack, defend , or movement to contact? Night, day, smoke , rain, clear weather? I have waited full nights for fog to clear on ranges without a single round being fired because of fog in spite of the TIS amazing capability to see through it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 10:13:19 PM EDT
[#2]
Of course. The Abrams is far from invulnerable and the 88 especially the long version has a lot of energy. The problem is the Abrams would be moving and shooting and the 88 wouldn't be able to peirce the frontal armor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 10:16:58 PM EDT
[#3]
Depends if the Abrams has a loader that belongs in the tank or is struggling with the rounds trying to prove a political point.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 10:24:11 PM EDT
[#4]
Probably, at least from behind, considering an 82mm B-10 recoilless rifle knocked out a 3ID M1A1 hit in the rear deck during the advance into Baghdad in 2003
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 10:27:32 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Probably, at least from behind, considering an 82mm B-10 recoilless rifle knocked out a 3ID M1A1 hit in the rear deck during the advance into Baghdad in 2003 Battery box area? If so I have a good idea of the TC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 10:34:09 PM EDT
[#6]
Under a few VERY particular circumstances, yes it could.
Even a under gunned Sherman or Hetzer could |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 10:36:02 PM EDT
[#7]
Frontal arc, NO. Rear, YES.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 10:39:28 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You could sent a battalion of tigers and the M1 kills them all before they fire a shot PKB Platoon-Kills-Battalion |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 10:42:48 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Now this is an interesting scenario. 10 Abrams vs. 100 King Tigers. Tigers will eventually swarm and kill them at a 10 to 1 ratio. Rational follows..... 1. The ability to use 120mm to maximum range possible terrain wise is not very likely or rarely ever seen. 2. Fire and maneuver. The Tigers will not be doing a simple frontal attack but rather using terrain to close distance while being overwatched. This attack will not be a turn based scenario. 3. Taking an individual tank out of the game does not have to be a catastrophic kill. It can be firepower (optics or gun), mobility, manpower, or communications as well. 4. A single vehicle taken out of fight by any one of the above methods exponentially increases number of threats they have to deal with rather quickly as well. 5. This is a simple tank on tank scenario. Throw in combined arms approach and things get dicey quick. ETA: Quantity has a quality all its own Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Fortunately the internet has answered this already.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOL00YjWbHINow this is an interesting scenario. 10 Abrams vs. 100 King Tigers. Tigers will eventually swarm and kill them at a 10 to 1 ratio. Rational follows..... 1. The ability to use 120mm to maximum range possible terrain wise is not very likely or rarely ever seen. 2. Fire and maneuver. The Tigers will not be doing a simple frontal attack but rather using terrain to close distance while being overwatched. This attack will not be a turn based scenario. 3. Taking an individual tank out of the game does not have to be a catastrophic kill. It can be firepower (optics or gun), mobility, manpower, or communications as well. 4. A single vehicle taken out of fight by any one of the above methods exponentially increases number of threats they have to deal with rather quickly as well. 5. This is a simple tank on tank scenario. Throw in combined arms approach and things get dicey quick. ETA: Quantity has a quality all its own |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 10:44:02 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lets do it in the dark. I'd hope they would choose a bit more wisely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 10:45:19 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd hope they would choose a bit more wisely. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Lets do it in the dark. I'd hope they would choose a bit more wisely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 10:46:26 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The American tankers would force a night fight. No brainer |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 10:46:54 PM EDT
[#13]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 10:53:10 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I love how this battle always happens on a giant pool table instead of in a city or forests. One of the times we did this over the years I pointed out that an 88 would have zero problem sailing right through the top of an Abrams and some guy that forgot there are things called “hills” wondered how the Tiger was going to fly. In the hills AND you get the perfect shot where the Tiger has enough depression and the Abrams is exposed on a steep slop? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 10:58:36 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You could sent a battalion of tigers and the M1 kills them all before they fire a shot |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 10:58:50 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Now this is an interesting scenario. 10 Abrams vs. 100 King Tigers. Tigers will eventually swarm and kill them at a 10 to 1 ratio. Rational follows..... 1. The ability to use 120mm to maximum range possible terrain wise is not very likely or rarely ever seen. 2. Fire and maneuver. The Tigers will not be doing a simple frontal attack but rather using terrain to close distance while being overwatched. This attack will not be a turn based scenario. 3. Taking an individual tank out of the game does not have to be a catastrophic kill. It can be firepower (optics or gun), mobility, manpower, or communications as well. 4. A single vehicle taken out of fight by any one of the above methods exponentially increases number of threats they have to deal with rather quickly as well. 5. This is a simple tank on tank scenario. Throw in combined arms approach and things get dicey quick. ETA: Quantity has a quality all its own Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Fortunately the internet has answered this already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOL00YjWbHINow this is an interesting scenario. 10 Abrams vs. 100 King Tigers. Tigers will eventually swarm and kill them at a 10 to 1 ratio. Rational follows..... 1. The ability to use 120mm to maximum range possible terrain wise is not very likely or rarely ever seen. 2. Fire and maneuver. The Tigers will not be doing a simple frontal attack but rather using terrain to close distance while being overwatched. This attack will not be a turn based scenario. 3. Taking an individual tank out of the game does not have to be a catastrophic kill. It can be firepower (optics or gun), mobility, manpower, or communications as well. 4. A single vehicle taken out of fight by any one of the above methods exponentially increases number of threats they have to deal with rather quickly as well. 5. This is a simple tank on tank scenario. Throw in combined arms approach and things get dicey quick. ETA: Quantity has a quality all its own Your rational sucks. Tiger II max speed is 41.5 km/h on roads, 20 km/h cross country. The Abrams can do 40 km/h, in reverse. The Abrams can engage the Tiger II at 4 km, on the move, and have a 75-90% hit rate. The Tiger would need to close to 2 km, and stop, to have a 50% chance of hitting the Abrams, sitting stationary. And at 2 km, the armor isn't getting penetrated by the 88mm. If the Abrams was stationary, it would take the Tiger II's 3 minutes to close the 2 km distance. In that space of time, an Abrams would have fired 9 times per minute (AT LEAST, on average, with qualified crews), so each Abrams would have scored, on average 20 hits, before the first Tigers got into range to fire their guns. 20x10 = 200 hits on 100 tanks. They all dead. That's assuming a parking lot for an engagement where the Tigers can move at max speed. Limited visibility and broken up terrain would actually hurt the Tigers rather than help, since even at close range, the Tiger isn't penetrating the armor, the Abrams can drive in reverse faster than the Tigers can close, so it can move, shoot while on the move, and keep on moving while the Tigers are moving, stopping, and shooting, and the Abrams can take hits, the Tigers can't. Abrams have ballistic computers, thermal, etc. Best case scenario, the Tigers get a few mobility kills and get wiped out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 10:59:21 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Take all the ammo out of the Tiger I or Tiger II and make an IED. Then park the Tiger near the IED. When the Abrams crew dismounts to look at the cool old tank you blow the IED. In the real world, this is the only part the Tiger has for victory. Maybe throw in using ammo to make IEDs. In a fictional scenario that has the M1 severely handicapped then yes the tiger could knock out the M1 with a golden BB. A mobility plus sensor kill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 11:03:18 PM EDT
[#18]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 11:11:12 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Now this is an interesting scenario. 10 Abrams vs. 100 King Tigers. Tigers will eventually swarm and kill them at a 10 to 1 ratio. Rational follows..... 1. The ability to use 120mm to maximum range possible terrain wise is not very likely or rarely ever seen. 2. Fire and maneuver. The Tigers will not be doing a simple frontal attack but rather using terrain to close distance while being overwatched. This attack will not be a turn based scenario. 3. Taking an individual tank out of the game does not have to be a catastrophic kill. It can be firepower (optics or gun), mobility, manpower, or communications as well. 4. A single vehicle taken out of fight by any one of the above methods exponentially increases number of threats they have to deal with rather quickly as well. 5. This is a simple tank on tank scenario. Throw in combined arms approach and things get dicey quick. ETA: Quantity has a quality all its own You assume the Abrams won't move? Last I checked, they can fire on the move. Quite simply, then can shoot and scoot ... backwards, if needed, and stay OUT of effective KT range. Finally, if my internet sleuthing is right, the M1 has at least a 20mph speed advantage. I'm not saying the KT's would definitely lose, but quantity has to get close enough to hurt you. Let's not even talk about night and thermal optics on the M1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 11:19:43 PM EDT
[#20]
The Abrams could easily take out Tigers with a frontal shot, while the Tiger would need a shot at a vulnerable spot (like the rear) on the Abrams.
Soldier of Fortune magazine had a great article written by a US tanker that was in the first Iraq war. He wrote about the immense advantage the Abrams had over the Soviet tanks (T-72 IIRC) the Iraqi's were using. He said the Abrams could hit and kill at a much greater range, and even more importantly could shoot and hit the Soviet tanks through smoke, dark of night, and other things that normally obscure vision. From the sound of the article the author gave the impression that while he engaged any reasonable targets, he felt kind of guilty by having such an immense advantage over his opponent...like it wasn't fair or something. It was a very interesting read. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 11:46:33 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Abrams could easily take out Tigers with a frontal shot, while the Tiger would need a shot at a vulnerable spot (like the rear) on the Abrams. Soldier of Fortune magazine had a great article written by a US tanker that was in the first Iraq war. He wrote about the immense advantage the Abrams had over the Soviet tanks (T-72 IIRC) the Iraqi's were using. He said the Abrams could hit and kill at a much greater range, and even more importantly could shoot and hit the Soviet tanks through smoke, dark of night, and other things that normally obscure vision. From the sound of the article the author gave the impression that while he engaged any reasonable targets, he felt kind of guilty by having such an immense advantage over his opponent...like it wasn't fair or something. It was a very interesting read. Which begs the question: Is a KT better or worse than a Russian T-72? Sounds like the OP has the answer to his question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2021 11:58:00 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which begs the question: Is a KT better or worse than a Russian T-72? Sounds like the OP has the answer to his question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 2:37:21 AM EDT
[#23]
Can the King Tiger even shoot while moving?
The simulation had the Abrams sitting still and taking what seemed to be a leisurely time reloading. I'd like to see a more advanced simulation with the Abrahams moving at 4km out and see the hit percentage of the KT drop to zero. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 2:51:04 AM EDT
[#24]
Double post
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 2:51:31 AM EDT
[#25]
don't think a tiger can take out a Abrams from a mile away so i vote no
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 2:52:05 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's the King (Royal) Tiger. This has been discussed before and I believe it could. Not frontally of course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 3:42:11 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your rational sucks. Tiger II max speed is 41.5 km/h on roads, 20 km/h cross country. The Abrams can do 40 km/h, in reverse. The Abrams can engage the Tiger II at 4 km, on the move, and have a 75-90% hit rate. The Tiger would need to close to 2 km, and stop, to have a 50% chance of hitting the Abrams, sitting stationary. And at 2 km, the armor isn't getting penetrated by the 88mm. If the Abrams was stationary, it would take the Tiger II's 3 minutes to close the 2 km distance. In that space of time, an Abrams would have fired 9 times per minute (AT LEAST, on average, with qualified crews), so each Abrams would have scored, on average 20 hits, before the first Tigers got into range to fire their guns. 20x10 = 200 hits on 100 tanks. They all dead. That's assuming a parking lot for an engagement where the Tigers can move at max speed. Limited visibility and broken up terrain would actually hurt the Tigers rather than help, since even at close range, the Tiger isn't penetrating the armor, the Abrams can drive in reverse faster than the Tigers can close, so it can move, shoot while on the move, and keep on moving while the Tigers are moving, stopping, and shooting, and the Abrams can take hits, the Tigers can't. Abrams have ballistic computers, thermal, etc. Best case scenario, the Tigers get a few mobility kills and get wiped out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 3:50:38 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your rational sucks. Tiger II max speed is 41.5 km/h on roads, 20 km/h cross country. The Abrams can do 40 km/h, in reverse. The Abrams can engage the Tiger II at 4 km, on the move, and have a 75-90% hit rate. The Tiger would need to close to 2 km, and stop, to have a 50% chance of hitting the Abrams, sitting stationary. And at 2 km, the armor isn't getting penetrated by the 88mm. If the Abrams was stationary, it would take the Tiger II's 3 minutes to close the 2 km distance. In that space of time, an Abrams would have fired 9 times per minute (AT LEAST, on average, with qualified crews), so each Abrams would have scored, on average 20 hits, before the first Tigers got into range to fire their guns. 20x10 = 200 hits on 100 tanks. They all dead. That's assuming a parking lot for an engagement where the Tigers can move at max speed. Limited visibility and broken up terrain would actually hurt the Tigers rather than help, since even at close range, the Tiger isn't penetrating the armor, the Abrams can drive in reverse faster than the Tigers can close, so it can move, shoot while on the move, and keep on moving while the Tigers are moving, stopping, and shooting, and the Abrams can take hits, the Tigers can't. Abrams have ballistic computers, thermal, etc. Best case scenario, the Tigers get a few mobility kills and get wiped out. My rational is sound and reality based. Did you just not care to read the 10 to 1scenaro? This whole speed thing is nonsense and not reality based. As someone said earlier it matters only on a pool table. 99.9% of the time the engagement will not happen at full speed or anything approaching it. Please show any video to the contrary. Thats correct, you will not be able to produce any. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 4:01:00 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I love how this battle always happens on a giant pool table instead of in a city or forests. One of the times we did this over the years I pointed out that an 88 would have zero problem sailing right through the top of an Abrams and some guy that forgot there are things called “hills” wondered how the Tiger was going to fly. Quote HistoryQuoted: I love how this battle always happens on a giant pool table instead of in a city or forests. One of the times we did this over the years I pointed out that an 88 would have zero problem sailing right through the top of an Abrams and some guy that forgot there are things called “hills” wondered how the Tiger was going to fly. Here’s the thing though, with an AGT1500 to play with on the Abrams side, they’re going to have all the hilltops as soon as they decide they want them. Abrams: “Look at me, I am the aeroplane now.”  Quoted: Quoted: Take all the ammo out of the Tiger I or Tiger II and make an IED. Then park the Tiger near the IED. When the Abrams crew dismounts to look at the cool old tank you blow the IED. In the real world, this is the only part the Tiger has for victory. Maybe throw in using ammo to make IEDs. In a fictional scenario that has the M1 severely handicapped then yes the tiger could knock out the M1 with a golden BB. A mobility plus sensor kill. M1Ax armor is no joke. I remember there was in IED in Iraq buried under a roadway, I think it was either 1 or 2 155mms buried under the roadway and detonated remotely the moment the Abrams passed over it. Tank got tossed in the air, fell back down. Driver had broken leg(s), other crew had minor injuries from being banged around on the tank interior, and the main gun’s elevation control was completely toast. But the tank was intact and drove home under its own power with crew in various states of pain but very much alive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 4:14:34 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A Tiger Tanks 88mm loaded with AP at almost point blank range would NOT penetrate an Abrams tank. At 100m loaded with AP could penetrate about 132 mm of hardened armor at an angle of 30°. Newer M1A2 Abrams armor is equivalent to 950mm hardened armor. So a hit to the side of the engine compartment and maybe a perfect hit to the side of the central hull? Seems like several king tigers in ambush could get a few kills IF the Abrams crews are not looking for them (thermal is a bitch...). At which point they get decimated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 4:20:14 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My rational is sound and reality based. Did you just not care to read the 10 to 1scenaro? This whole speed thing is nonsense and not reality based. As someone said earlier it matters only on a pool table. 99.9% of the time the engagement will not happen at full speed or anything approaching it. Please show any video to the contrary. Thats correct, you will not be able to produce any. It was still fundamentally flawed. The Tigers need to manoeuvre for stationary clean side shots against an enemy that shoots while moving and can take them at any angle. That's extremely difficult and your scenario didn't take that into account. Also your caveat of a mobility or comms hit taking the tank out of the fight tips balance substantially and is not justifiable. Neither of those will prevent an Abrams from continuing to kill tigers but a mobility hit does prevent the tiger from getting any more Abrams kills. You're also assuming that it'll be the Tigers ambushing the Abrams and that the Abrams will let them. Given the Abrams ability for rapid withdrawal while continuing effective engagement that is going to be turned around very rapidly. As soon as the Tigers have to pursue them they are no longer able to make any effective hits. Whatever the terrain is the Abrams can retreat as fast as the tiger can advance - if the tiger doesn't stop to fire. There is no way the tigers can maintain the side engagement that they require. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 4:31:52 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was still fundamentally flawed. The Tigers need to manoeuvre for stationary clean side shots against an enemy that shoots while moving and can take them at any angle. That's extremely difficult and your scenario didn't take that into account. Also your caveat of a mobility or comms hit taking the tank out of the fight tips balance substantially and is not justifiable. Neither of those will prevent an Abrams from continuing to kill tigers but a mobility hit died prevent the tiger from getting any more Abrams kills. Perhaps.10-1 is not where I would place my bet though. To make it more interesting though, let's say it is T-55 or T-62s. Where will the magical transition occur WRT to taking a single tank out? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 4:33:25 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was still fundamentally flawed. The Tigers need to manoeuvre for stationary clean side shots against an enemy that shoots while moving and can take them at any angle. That's extremely difficult and your scenario didn't take that into account. Also your caveat of a mobility or comms hit taking the tank out of the fight tips balance substantially and is not justifiable. Neither of those will prevent an Abrams from continuing to kill tigers but a mobility hit does prevent the tiger from getting any more Abrams kills. You're also assuming that it'll be the Tigers ambushing the Abrams and that the Abrams will let them. Given the Abrams ability for rapid withdrawal while continuing effective engagement that is going to be turned around very rapidly. As soon as the Tigers have to pursue them they are no longer able to make any effective hits. Whatever the terrain is the Abrams can retreat as fast as the tiger can advance - if the tiger doesn't stop to fire. There is no way the tigers can maintain the side engagement that they require. Not sure where you got that assumption from. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 4:35:19 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Perhaps.10-1 is not where I would place my bet though. To make it more interesting though, let's say it is T-55 or T-62s. Where will the magical transition occur WRT to taking a single tank out? We did that in GW1... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 4:39:54 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We did that in GW1... 10-1. Daytime non pool table scenario? No we did not. Would tou take on those same odds with say a T-72 then? Just curious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 4:42:34 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not sure where you got that assumption from. You said "The Tigers will not be doing a simple frontal attack but rather using terrain to close distance while being overwatched. This attack will not be a turn based scenario." The Tigers are controlling the engagement. Given that the Abrams is better able to detect them, to disseminate the information and coordinate their movement as well as the ability to retreat faster than the tigers can advance while firing (regardless of what the terrain limits effective speed to) the tigers are only going to be getting side shots at the start and only if the engagement begins with them already enveloping the Abrams. In any kind of realistic meeting engagement their ability to get those side shots is going to be highly limited and then fall to nil after the first few shots are exchanged. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 4:42:43 AM EDT
[#37]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 4:44:29 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That’s the King (Royal) Tiger. This has been discussed before and I believe it could. Not frontally of course. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Could a round from a Tiger with a clear shot take out an Abrams tank? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/259519/09E5D967-F9EC-4769-9A05-3210CD2AACC2_jpe-1900280.JPG That’s the King (Royal) Tiger. This has been discussed before and I believe it could. Not frontally of course. No, No it's not. The Germans called it the TIGER II ( Tiger 2 ), and Royal Tiger is a mistranslation of Königstiger. Said that the Tiger II with the Henschel Turret is the most sexy tank of WW2.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 4:51:37 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 10-1. Daytime non pool table scenario? No we did not. Would tou take on those same odds with say a T-72 then? Just curious. The T72 is much more interesting. It can't take the front armour but it can take the entire side armour with a clean shot and much of the side at an angle. It's fast and can shoot on the move giving it a much better chance of getting the angles it needs. If the Abrams is at a severe numerical disadvantage then it requires excellent tactics and coordination from the Abrams crews to maintain control of the engagement. If they fail to do so then it won't take 10:1 to beat them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 5:08:59 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We did that in GW1... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Perhaps.10-1 is not where I would place my bet though. To make it more interesting though, let's say it is T-55 or T-62s. Where will the magical transition occur WRT to taking a single tank out? We did that in GW1... I may be misremembering and/or was fed one too many tanker bullshit stories, but wasn't there a mobility kill on an M1A1 during the GW1 by T-72s? Only the M1 crew were the only ones who got to tell the story because the turret was fine and they acted as a stationary gun and killed the T-72s one after another, which weren't able to get through the tank's main armor. I heard that back around GW2 and was blown away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 5:38:24 AM EDT
[#41]
Purely antidotal but in War Thunder back in the day it wasn’t uncommon to see tigers show up in top tier vs M1s. Even the earlier version of the M1 with the 105mm gun, it would smash multiple Tigers without taking any damage. Better optics, thermals, gun stabilization, speed, turret speed, ballistics, armor. There isn’t a single category that the Tiger is better than the Abrams.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 7:39:08 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Could a round from a Tiger with a clear shot take out an Abrams tank? Assume perfect shot. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/259519/09E5D967-F9EC-4769-9A05-3210CD2AACC2_jpe-1900280.JPG |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 7:48:05 AM EDT
[#43]
People that said from the rear, or at vulnerable spots. Yes, but the only way a Tiger is going to get a shot placed that accurately is if they get blessed by the dumb luck fairy. When the M1 shoots at something, they're going to hit where they aimed almost every time. The M1 is shooting a benchrest competition sniper rifle, and the Tiger is lobbing round balls from Elmer Fudd's Brown Bess.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 7:55:24 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. Chobham armor would stop a WW2 88mm AP cold. They could probably maybe blow a track off with a perfect hit, and then they would die quickly. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Could a round from a Tiger with a clear shot take out an Abrams tank? Assume perfect shot. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/259519/09E5D967-F9EC-4769-9A05-3210CD2AACC2_jpe-1900280.JPG I once talked to an M1 driver from the gulf war who said he knew he would be fine when he saw t72 rounds bouncing off the front of the abrams. Assuming this is true and there is no real reason to doubt it, there is no way in hell an 88 is doing more than scratching the paint. It could surely damage sensors and maybe a track with a lucky shot. It's also a lot more than just gun and armor. It's mobility, sensors, fire control, communications, etc.. If you could give an Abrams unlimited ammo and the barrel could take it, I'd bet 1 abrams could handle them all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 7:55:32 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: People that said from the rear, or at vulnerable spots. Yes, but a Tiger is only going to get a shot placed that accurately is if they get blessed by the dumb luck fairy. When the M1 shoots at something, they're going to hit where they aimed almost every time. The M1 is shooting a benchresting competition sniper rifle, and the Tiger is lobbing round balls from Elmer Fudd's Brown Bess. Optics on the Abrams would let the Abrams crew see the Tiger and kill it before the Tiger crew knew what hit them. The Tiger was a bad ass tank in its day but it wouldn’t be able to challenge even cheaper modern tanks like the M60 AMBT. Optics, thermals, gun stabilization and the APFSDS rounds have changed the game completely. Even if a Tiger could get close enough to take a shot on a stationary modern tank, the armor packages modern tanks have would mean at most the Tiger could track or score an engine shot. Outside of that it couldn’t do much IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 7:59:09 AM EDT
[#46]
Stacy? Probably but why?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 8:40:25 AM EDT
[#47]
I said 'almost every' instead of just 'every' because the only time they aren't going to hit what they aimed at is when what they aimed at isn't there anymore when the shot arrives. You have from whenever they fire till when it arrives on target to be somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 8:42:31 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Now this is an interesting scenario. 10 Abrams vs. 100 King Tigers. Tigers will eventually swarm and kill them at a 10 to 1 ratio. Rational follows..... 1. The ability to use 120mm to maximum range possible terrain wise is not very likely or rarely ever seen. 2. Fire and maneuver. The Tigers will not be doing a simple frontal attack but rather using terrain to close distance while being overwatched. This attack will not be a turn based scenario. 3. Taking an individual tank out of the game does not have to be a catastrophic kill. It can be firepower (optics or gun), mobility, manpower, or communications as well. 4. A single vehicle taken out of fight by any one of the above methods exponentially increases number of threats they have to deal with rather quickly as well. 5. This is a simple tank on tank scenario. Throw in combined arms approach and things get dicey quick. ETA: Quantity has a quality all its own You didn’t factor in a 70% breakdown rate for the KT’s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 8:54:02 AM EDT
[#49]
Tank on tank is boring.
I want to know if a PIAT or a US bazooka (the little one, not the super-bazooka) could kill an Abrams. Not just knock a track off, but penetrate the hull. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2021 9:19:49 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Tank on tank is boring. I want to know if a PIAT or a US bazooka (the little one, not the super-bazooka) could kill an Abrams. Not just knock a track off, but penetrate the hull. The 2.4 was ineffective against the T34. The 3.5 was marginally effective. They would be completely ineffective against an M1 absent a magic BB event. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File
Attached File