PDA

View Full Version : WW2 armor and anti-armor VS. modern equipment



Chogy
01 Mar 13,, 15:35
Small arms have evolved little since WW2, but not so more advanced weapons. I've always been fascinated by the evolution of the tank, and anti-tank systems. Like Napolean with his B-29 at Waterloo, I enjoy imagining a handful of M1-A1 tanks at Kursk or during the Bulge, and the German 88's and Panzers countering them. But I know little about the subject.

Would an M1 tank, given unlimited fuel and munitions and barring mechanical breakdown, sweep aside axis forces like a man would swat mosquitos? At night, I have no doubt it'd be nearly invincible.

In WW2, the 88 was lethal. Would this round basically bounce off an M1, or does it stand a chance? Panzerfaust - worthless, or does it too have a chance to be effective? My novice guess would be mobility kills at best, but an inability to penetrate and kill the crew.

bigross86
01 Mar 13,, 15:52
Even a mobility kill just leaves you with a large amount of highly lethal pillboxes in the area

astralis
01 Mar 13,, 17:15
chogy,

have you ever read harry turtledove's World War series?

it posits a bunch of lizard-like aliens, armed with 1990s-level military technology, invades earth right in the middle of WWII.

against the early-middle WWII tanks (Panzer IIs, Panzer IVs, Shermans) the alien/1990s-tank is all but invincible, although the Russians used trained dogs with explosive belts running underneath the tank to score the occasional mobility kill.

the late-model WWII tanks-- the Panthers and the Tigers, upgunned Shermans-- could score a kill but only at relatively close range and against the side armor. the aliens, not having fought anyone in thousands of years, are pathetic when it comes to tactics, but even then, it takes about 5-6 Tiger tanks to kill one modern tank.

in the story the Germans considered the alien APCs to be about equivalent to their own heavy tanks.

not sure how accurate this all is but it certainly seems plausible to me. there's one excellent scene where US scientists/engineers, having captured an alien tank and its crew, try their best to break down and understand a laser rangefinder.

Stitch
01 Mar 13,, 17:45
The KwK 43 L/71 on the King Tiger could probably score a kill on an M1 from the rear, but that's about it. The Germans would stand a better chance against an M1 with the 128mm PaK 44 L55 on the Jagdtiger, but even then it would probably have to be within 500 m, long after the M1 could nail it with it's 120mm M256. The DU armor on the M1 would be extremely difficult to penetrate with a 1940's main tank gun, even the 128mm PaK 44 would probably fail. The Germans would have to use the same tactics the American and the British used against Panthers and Tigers: try to draw an M1 out so other units could attack it from the sides and rear.

Doktor
01 Mar 13,, 17:53
What about mines?

Or hordes of infantry popping on the tank (Soviets would do that no sweat).

1979
01 Mar 13,, 18:00
What about mines?


afaik mobility kill at most , however coupled with some heavy artillery shells it might work.

TopHatter
01 Mar 13,, 18:47
harry turtledove's World War series?

Excellent alternate history series!

astralis
01 Mar 13,, 18:59
yeah, that was Dr Turtledove back when he cared about writing. the World War series was amazingly fun and well researched. what Stitch mentioned was pretty much right from the book-- using some luckless Tigers as bait, while the others tried to get the modern tank from up close from the rear/sides.

of course with modern-day sensors this tactic probably wouldn't work either.

Albany Rifles
01 Mar 13,, 19:38
LGPPOG (little groups of pissed off grunts) swarming presuposes there is no mutual support. Your buddies coax could take care of much of that.

It would take an extremely lucky shot to kill an M1A1/A2 (same with any other current generation MBT.

However, a buried IED made from a 500 ln bomb at a chockepoint?

Can opener.

Officer of Engineers
01 Mar 13,, 20:32
Give me time and a big shovel and I will dig you a tiger trap. Yeah, maybe a softkill but the time and effort you need to get it out, you might as well blow it up.

zraver
01 Mar 13,, 22:49
Sm

Would an M1 tank, given unlimited fuel and munitions and barring mechanical breakdown, sweep aside axis forces like a man would swat mosquitos? At night, I have no doubt it'd be nearly invincible.

Without air cover they would be dead meat. Top armor today is pretty much the same thickness and material it was then. Aircobra, Typhoon, Sturmovick, Stuka doesn't really matter which. Now if they had air cover and conventional support that is a different story. The only WWII era AFV's that could damage a modern MBT from the front would be the Soviet ISU-100Y with its naval 130mm gun or the SU/ISU-152. The SU-122, ISU-122, ISU-100, Jagdtiger, King tiger and jagdpanther, M36, Pershing and Super Pershing could probably score a kill from the side against the Abrams.

Much lower on the likelihood the Panther, T-34/85, Pz-IV/Stug III (and other kwk40 tracks), Firefly (and other 17lb gun tracks) and Sherman 76's might be able to get a side penetration depending on location and range but could probably get a rear penetration.

Panzerfaust or Bazooka could probably get a rear side penetration while the Panzershrek might be able to punch middle side.

AT mines for mobility kills and heavy artillery if it scores a top hit.

USSWisconsin
02 Mar 13,, 02:39
Without air cover they would be dead meat. Top armor today is pretty much the same thickness and material it was then. Aircobra, Typhoon, Sturmovick, Stuka doesn't really matter which. Now if they had air cover and conventional support that is a different story. The only WWII era AFV's that could damage a modern MBT from the front would be the Soviet ISU-100Y with its naval 130mm gun or the SU/ISU-152. The SU-122, ISU-122, ISU-100, Jagdtiger, King tiger and jagdpanther, M36, Pershing and Super Pershing could probably score a kill from the side against the Abrams.

Much lower on the likelihood the Panther, T-34/85, Pz-IV/Stug III (and other kwk40 tracks), Firefly (and other 17lb gun tracks) and Sherman 76's might be able to get a side penetration depending on location and range but could probably get a rear penetration.

Panzerfaust or Bazooka could probably get a rear side penetration while the Panzershrek might be able to punch middle side.

AT mines for mobility kills and heavy artillery if it scores a top hit.

I am surprised to hear this about these intermediate strength 3" guns (the Soviet 85mm was like a good 3" gun as far as AT work was concerned - though it had better than average range in this class, it wasn't a powerful penetrator like the 88mm or the 32 Pdr/84mm were, the 85mm's primary strength over 3" guns was its heavier explosive shell for bunker busting). I know the 17 Pdr and the Panther 75/70 were different than other 3" guns, and had unusual penetration. I am no expert on the armor on an M1 Abrams so I can't argue this point.

zraver
02 Mar 13,, 03:52
I am surprised to hear this about these intermediate strength 3" guns (the Soviet 85mm was like a good 3" gun as far as AT work was concerned - though it had better than average range in this class, it wasn't a powerful penetrator like the 88mm or the 32 Pdr/84mm were, the 85mm's primary strength over 3" guns was its heavier explosive shell for bunker busting). I know the 17 Pdr and the Panther 75/70 were different than other 3" guns, and had unusual penetration. I am no expert on the armor on an M1 Abrams so I can't argue this point.

The Abrams was built to face and then counter attack a Soviet horde. This means armor to the front and level.

The armor on the Abrams is almost all to the front and front sides around the crew. Think two giant armored horseshoe shaped areas (hull and turret) thickest at the base of the U and thinning out towards the end of either leg of the U. The rear and rear sides are protected by more by fuel tanks (hull) or the blast doors separating the crew from the ammunition (turret). The best period ammo for the 3" type guns other than the panther give between 4 and 5 inches of penetration at 1000m. This should be enough to penetrate the rear sides over the ammo or engine.

DonBelt
02 Mar 13,, 06:08
Wasn't this a 1980's movie, but with an aircraft carrier (the Nimitz) going back to Hawaii just before Pearl Harbor? The Final Countdown, I think?

chanjyj
02 Mar 13,, 08:20
Wasn't this a 1980's movie, but with an aircraft carrier (the Nimitz) going back to Hawaii just before Pearl Harbor? The Final Countdown, I think?

There is also one from last year - Battleship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship_(film)).

I wonder how the Merkava will fair in place of the M1A1.

bigross86
02 Mar 13,, 11:58
You can't really compare, since there is no real proper way to compare between MBT's. Merkava's have their engine in front, so mobility kills might be more likely from a front shot, but are designed around crew survivability (we can always build more tanks, we prefer our soldiers alive), so there might end up being less fatalities in the long run. Again, there's no real way to know

zraver
02 Mar 13,, 14:21
You can't really compare, since there is no real proper way to compare between MBT's. Merkava's have their engine in front, so mobility kills might be more likely from a front shot, but are designed around crew survivability (we can always build more tanks, we prefer our soldiers alive), so there might end up being less fatalities in the long run. Again, there's no real way to know

Not to imply the merk isn't a good tank it is. Just not sure it deserves the title of best protected.

Not so sure I agree. Putting the engine in front means the Merk has to extend the area under armor farther down the side of the turret and hull. In addition the Merk doesn't have the emphasis on the front and level the Abrams does. This means a lot more area to protect, but there isn't a lot of weight difference. The publicly accepted weight difference between the M1A2SEPv2 (63tn, TUSK is even heavier), Challenger II CLIP (61t), Leo 2A6 (62.3t, A6+ variants are even hevier) and the Merk IV (65t) isn't enough to make up the difference. This means thinning the front out leading to more mobility kills from the front without an overall increase in crew protection.

Combat losses certainly don't reflect an increase in protection. Comparing generationally equivalent Abrams, Challenger and Merkavas the Merk comes off no better than the two Coalition tanks. The big EFP' ad VBIEDs the Abrams faced in Iraq are easy analogs for the ATGM's the Merks faced in Lebanon. Certainly comparing non HA Abrams and Challenger I's in the FGW vs the older merk 3's in Lebanon leaves the Merk's reputation wanting. In both comparisons the NATO crewmen were a lot more likely to survive an attack.

However in a WWII scenario such a layout might be a benefit since nothing of that era can reliably penetrate the front of even the previous generation of tanks like the Patton and Centurion.

bigross86
02 Mar 13,, 14:59
I never said it was the most or best protected tank, I was merely saying that IMI places a heavier emphasis on crew survivability, which is the main reason the engine is in front. One of my company's tanks in Lebanon took a direct hit at 12:00, head on dead center of the engine compartment. The tank burned for 12 hours because a fuel line was cut, but the entire crew got out OK. The tank was towed out of Lebanon and back into Israel. A new engine was put in, the fuel lines were repaired and the tank was good as new.

That's just one example, yes, but it goes to show the Israeli philosophy regarding the building of MBTs.

USSWisconsin
02 Mar 13,, 15:17
The two AFV's are so different in concept and mission. The Merk was never intended to do what the Abrams was built for, Israel is a much smaller region than Europe, where the M1 was going to oppose the USSR in very large engagements involving nuclear exchanges.. The Merk has the handy rear access door layout, and lots of features optimised for its speciific mission, it is intended to be effective operating in a smaller force structure with far fewer units, opposing smaller regional adversaries. The M1 concept is more like the Soviet AFV's it would have fought. To try and make make direct comparisons about which is better is, IMO, like comparing apples and oranges. Of course fighting successfully against the huge force structures, which the M1 is designed to be a part of would, be outside of what the Merc's design and support structure would support effectively.

astralis
02 Mar 13,, 16:50
in any case, in the CONTEXT of WWII technologies, the differences would be minor at most. your German or US or Russian guy in a tank would be scared shitless seeing one of those, assuming he actually saw the tank before getting blown up...

Blademaster
02 Mar 13,, 17:17
The best tank is a tank that you can produce more and faster than the enemy can kill it and is easy to maintain. What good is a tank if it breaks down all the time and you need to set up a logistics chain to keep the tank operable. If i was in the shoes of a WWII tank man and they were to offer me a M-1 tank even with top cover armor and rear armor, I would still stick with my trust old Sherman tank and trade the superfuturistic tank for more supplies because I know there is no way I can count on my logistics chain to support the M-1 tank.

Minskaya
02 Mar 13,, 18:49
in any case, in the CONTEXT of WWII technologies, the differences would be minor at most. your German or US or Russian guy in a tank would be scared shitless seeing one of those, assuming he actually saw the tank before getting blown up...
I agree. To neuter an Abrams in WWII, one would probably have to think unconventionally (i.e. simple physics tells us an Abrams would be vulnerable on a bridge for example).

Doktor
02 Mar 13,, 20:01
What type of gas/petrol/oil Abrams uses? How hard would it be to make it in WW2?

I wouldn't kill the tanks, but their logistics. Should be easier.

bigross86
02 Mar 13,, 20:10
From what I understand, most modern engines will take almost any fuel available, from kerosene to benzine to JP7 with everything else in the middle, except for maybe cooking or olive oil....

Doktor
02 Mar 13,, 20:27
From what I understand, most modern engines will take almost any fuel available, from kerosene to benzine to JP7 with everything else in the middle, except for maybe cooking or olive oil....

That would weaken my plan, but it is still easier to kill a truck or rail then Abrams.

BTW how many Abrams we talk about here?

Minskaya
02 Mar 13,, 20:35
A pretty good overview of the Abrams series:

Main Battle Tank - M1, M1A1, and M1A2 Abrams (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm)

Doktor
02 Mar 13,, 20:44
Something is wrong with that title (on the site)

M1 A1/2 :red:

Minskaya
02 Mar 13,, 21:06
Something is wrong with that title (on the site) M1 A1/2 :red:
I suppose the graphic could have been formatted better - like the link fetch.

But I managed to understand it, and English is my third language :biggrin:

USSWisconsin
02 Mar 13,, 23:12
Modern ammo would be hard to come up with in WWII, fuel would be a non-issue for modern multi-fuel AVF's. They could use what was available. I see little point in using modern MG's, except for the M2 0.50, which would still be good, but it would better to use older 0.30 weapons instead of the NATO 7.62mm - to make the ammo easy, perhaps using the super pershing 90mm would be an option on a modern tank moved back in time to WWII. But an M-48 with a diesel might be the better option. Even if the gun needed to be chambered for WWII 90mm ammo. An M48 against WWII tanks would stil be quite an advantage.I would think it would have the same kind of advantage the Tiger II had as far as firepower and protection, but much better mobility. The weight of an M1 would be a weakness, that and modern main gun ammo availability.

TopHatter
03 Mar 13,, 00:34
Top armor today is pretty much the same thickness and material it was then.

Really? Why no composite armor on the top? :confused:


Something is wrong with that title (on the site)

M1 A1/2 :red:

Nah it's just a shortened way of saying "M1A1 and M1A2"

zraver
03 Mar 13,, 00:56
What type of gas/petrol/oil Abrams uses? How hard would it be to make it in WW2?

I wouldn't kill the tanks, but their logistics. Should be easier.

The Abrams uses a multi-fuel turbine.

Jay,

On the subject of ammo. Spinning up some 120mm ammo would not be hard. Nothing in the powder or casing is undoable in WWII. The Sabots are out, but HEAT is real simple technology and easily copied. On the machine guns the M240 is a damn good weapon and easily copied and put into production. Much better weapon than the M1919.

The big problems for all modern MBT's in a time war scenario are the fire control and power pack. Those two systems are so far past what you can do with WWII its not even funny. Once they break (and they do) its all over. From WWII through to today, tanks are only built to go about 1500 miles between major overhauls.

But until they broke if they had infantry support and air cover... hot damn. @ 25mph fire on the move, at night, through smoke at ranges between 2500-3000m. Even using HEAT rounds there isn't a single vehicle that can match them one on one. Firing a round every 8 seconds and taking 181 seconds to travel towithin 1000m of the enemy the tank would get off 22 shots- half its ammo load and probably get 20 kills. In a fluid fight and a good crew a single tank could wipe out the equivalent of an enemy tank battalion.

Ben, not trying to get into an Abrams v Merkava debate but the way you say, The IMI puts an emphasis on crew survival makes it sound like the US doesn't. With the possible exception of the Challenger or the Leo, the Abrams has suffered fewer injuries per hit taken in combat than any vehicle in history. The crew is very well protected, the massive amount of armor the tank carries is concentrated around the crew not around the crew, ammo and engine. The biggest killer of Abrams crewmen is Abrams drivers that turn the tank turtle or drive it into deep water.

astralis
03 Mar 13,, 02:35
if you sent, say, 500 MBTs back in time, the trick would be to immediately take 100 MBTs back to the US (assuming that this was a gift to the Allies) and then use it to do a bunch of research.

the rest could be kept in reserve, to be used to break the enemy at the schwerpunkt.

the later the war gets and the worse it looks for the germans, then the fewer you'd need to send up and the more you can keep for research.

wonder how much a skilled 1940s engineer could get out of a modern MBT. perhaps enough to skip 20 years' worth of design in 5-10 years. having a M60 rolling around by 1947 or 1948 would certainly make it very tempting for the americans to solve the cold war once and for all. wonder how a T-34 would do against THAT.

Minskaya
03 Mar 13,, 09:54
Ben, not trying to get into an Abrams v Merkava debate but...
Philosophically speaking, Ben is correct. The Merkava is the design innovation of Major General Israel Tal, who always stated that his main design goal was crew survivability. Locating the engine mass in front is one of the protective innovations unique to MG Tal and the Merkava.

Since the lessons of the 2006 Lebanon War, the Merkava has been upgraded with 360° assessment capability and countermeasure systems such as LAHAT, Trophy, and Trench Coat. In regards to the four essential tank components - protection/survivability/firepower/mobility - the Merkava IV is on a par with the best MBTs in the world.


wonder how much a skilled 1940s engineer could get out of a modern MBT.
The technological innovations could probably be grasped on an intellectual basis. However, duplicating these innovations without the aid of modern computers and digital machinery would probably be impossible.

Doktor
03 Mar 13,, 11:16
So, again, how many MBTs we talk about here?

And what crew with them? Only the tank ones or more?

bigross86
03 Mar 13,, 11:35
That's actually a good point. In the IDF, every tank company has 3 platoons of 3 tanks each, the XO and CO have a tank, and the company has a Namer APC and an M-113 that carry the company's ~10 man technical squad, that has all the tools and know-how to perform more-than-basic repairs and replacements while in the field. If you're taking the entire company with you back to WWII, then you've got a group of people that can give the 1940 scientists a crash course and heads up in 21st century technology. This means that they don't have to learn how to use it all by themselves, you're sending teachers back with you

Minskaya
03 Mar 13,, 12:33
An operational Abrams would probably be doable for a limited duration. On the other hand, it would be impossible to operate a modern military drone in the WWII era.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/IAI_Heron_1_operators.JPEG/795px-IAI_Heron_1_operators.JPEG
IAI engineers testing a Heron-1 UAV

chanjyj
03 Mar 13,, 13:10
That's actually a good point. In the IDF, every tank company has 3 platoons of 3 tanks each, the XO and CO have a tank, and the company has a Namer APC and an M-113 that carry the company's ~10 man technical squad, that has all the tools and know-how to perform more-than-basic repairs and replacements while in the field. If you're taking the entire company with you back to WWII, then you've got a group of people that can give the 1940 scientists a crash course and heads up in 21st century technology. This means that they don't have to learn how to use it all by themselves, you're sending teachers back with you

And the Namer's armour is also a fair match for the WW2 tanks. Very interesting mind games we play over at WAB :whome:

zraver
03 Mar 13,, 14:43
if you sent, say, 500 MBTs back in time, the trick would be to immediately take 100 MBTs back to the US (assuming that this was a gift to the Allies) and then use it to do a bunch of research.

the rest could be kept in reserve, to be used to break the enemy at the schwerpunkt.

the later the war gets and the worse it looks for the germans, then the fewer you'd need to send up and the more you can keep for research.

500 is a bit of overkill... However I recall an old Twilight Zone episode where the crew of the M5 went back to the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Imagine if you will a platoon of any nationality appearing during that sides pivotal tank battle. Leo's in Normandy, T-90's at Kursk, Abrams at Kasserine, Challengers during Crusader, Leclercs at Sedan, Arietes in Egypt 1940, Type 90's in the Philippines, Type 98's at Nanking...

A platoon of 3-4 tanks can't physically change the war, they would run out of ammo. But could the shock of their appearance and the capability they brought do so like a ripple across a pond?


wonder how much a skilled 1940s engineer could get out of a modern MBT. perhaps enough to skip 20 years' worth of design in 5-10 years. having a M60 rolling around by 1947 or 1948 would certainly make it very tempting for the americans to solve the cold war once and for all. wonder how a T-34 would do against THAT.

Not sure, the modern MBT is so far ahead of what a WWII era engineer could even conceptualize in terms of technology. They don't even have the technical language to describe what they would have. They only thing they would recognize would be the turret ring (same 69" diameter as the Sherman) Now on an old school Patton, even an M60A3TTS they could duplicate the gun, armor and engine in short order. It would take some time to set up the casting facilties and plants to build the tech but minus the electronics the Patton is the ultimate extension of WWII type tech. Even much of the electronics would provide insights to the WWII engineers with things like transistors that are easier to understand and duplicate than chips.

chanjyj
03 Mar 13,, 15:46
zraver nailed it. If anything, it would be the chips that present the greatest hurdle and not the tank in its entirety. Imagine going from a Bombe machine to a silicon chip!

USSWisconsin
03 Mar 13,, 17:21
I'm thinking in terms of at least 50 MBT's and perhaps as many as 100. More would be overkilll, less might not have the impact being pursued. There would need to be a fighting force that could stand some attrition, and a fair number of engineering samples. It would need to be demonstrated more than once. As Ben mentioned, I believe some related support vehicles, tools, spares and and a fully staffed sustaining group of trained men would be necessary to see timely results. Just hardware? It might not even see any action during the war. Another thing, the commanders in WWII would be very concerned about one or more of these falling into enemy hands. It might be hard to get them into action period.

I agree modern chips would be indistingishable from magic in WWII, it would take years for the engineers of that period to understand them, and even longer to replicate them.

astralis
03 Mar 13,, 18:54
another thing, the commanders in WWII would be very concerned about one or more of these falling into enemy hands. It might be hard to get them into action period.

a really cruel trickster, now, could take one modern tank that had been damaged in action or something; make it inoperable, and then let it fall into enemy hands.

this would be a great money/resource-sink, especially for someone like hitler. he'd insist huge amounts of money go into R&D to try to replicate his own tank, which would certainly fail. and every d-mark that went into trying to create a new tank would be one less d-mark that would fund something actually useful in the war.

zraver
03 Mar 13,, 21:48
Imagine the impact of a single case of M14 battle rifles to US authorities in 1941...

astralis
03 Mar 13,, 22:15
M-14s would be nice, but i don't think it would be THAT much better than the garands and the m1 carbines of the day.

the british EM-2 rifle, now, that would be huge.

EM-2 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM-2_Bullpup_Rifle)

it was a pity NATO never adopted it, primarily because the americans pretty much discounted the value of rapid-fire weapons (brass always had a fixation on marksmen armed with battle rifles) and bullied the rest of NATO into standardization. took the americans 20 years after WWII until the M-16 started getting used, and frankly even then the EM-2 with some modifications would have been superior.

zraver
03 Mar 13,, 22:43
M-14s would be nice, but i don't think it would be THAT much better than the garands and the m1 carbines of the day.

the british EM-2 rifle, now, that would be huge.

EM-2 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM-2_Bullpup_Rifle)

it was a pity NATO never adopted it, primarily because the americans pretty much discounted the value of rapid-fire weapons (brass always had a fixation on marksmen armed with battle rifles) and bullied the rest of NATO into standardization. took the americans 20 years after WWII until the M-16 started getting used, and frankly even then the EM-2 with some modifications would have been superior.

No doubt, less recoil, more carried ammo, more compact for urban fights... The reason I said M14 is the ease in which it could have been put into production. Would have turned every rifleman into an almost BAR gunner. Would also have gotten rid of the underpowered .30 carbine round.

USSWisconsin
03 Mar 13,, 23:59
The US already had the best rifle for most of the war, with the MP-44 making a little differrence at the end. I think a better allied rifle would have been such a minor thing, that it wouldn't have made very much diference. Advanced tanks or aircraft had the potential to be game changers, better small arms would have been nice, but the balence and flow of the war would have remained pretty much the same. If a rifle was going to be it, what about the AK-47 coming in earlier as the AK-43? Or maybe the Ak-74 coming instead in 43?

zraver
04 Mar 13,, 00:18
The US already had the best rifle for most of the war, with the MP-44 making a little differrence at the end. I think a better allied rifle would have been such a minor thing, that it wouldn't have made very much diference. Advanced tanks or aircraft had the potential to be game changers, better small arms would have been nice, but the balence and flow of the war would have remained pretty much the same. If a rifle was going to be it, what about the AK-47 coming in earlier as the AK-43?

Berlin by 44, if Kalashnikov can come up with the gas system. The war wasn't won with tanks but with infantry.

chanjyj
04 Mar 13,, 00:58
Speaking of small arms - would a AP/AP Incendiary 0.50 be able to affect the APCs and WW2 armour?
Imagine a Barrett M82 (or the like) being issued to every company..

Stitch
04 Mar 13,, 00:59
500 is a bit of overkill... However I recall an old Twilight Zone episode where the crew of the M5 went back to the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Imagine if you will a platoon of any nationality appearing during that sides pivotal tank battle. Leo's in Normandy, T-90's at Kursk, Abrams at Kasserine, Challengers during Crusader, Leclercs at Sedan, Arietes in Egypt 1940, Type 90's in the Philippines, Type 98's at Nanking...

Interesting.

A little off-subject here, but the wife was watching "Gods And Generals" last night (for the 10th time!), and I was wondering what a Confederate sniper with a .300 WinMag and a few thousand rounds of ammunition could've accomplished; another thread, perhaps?

USSWisconsin
04 Mar 13,, 01:12
Yes, the Barrett rifle would be pretty easy to replicate
Both the British, the Soviets and the Germans made good use of AT rifles early in the war, and they remained effective against most APC's throughout the war. The Japanese had them too.

in WWII. And the introduction of AR/AK rifles, with lightweight ammo, early enough to get the logistics working good. Getting the Soviets and the Allies all on one lightweight cartridge like 5.56mm would be very hard on the Axis, and make lend-lease even more efficient. An ideal time might have been when the battleship treaties expired in the early 30's, and the world was rearming, though getting the Soviets to cooperate at that time would be out.

Gun Grape
04 Mar 13,, 02:22
Drop off a few hundred sets of Interceptor Body Armor with E-SAPI plates and modern helmets.

chanjyj
04 Mar 13,, 03:27
And issue personal radios. It'll be real cheap since they don't need to be encrypted. $400USD per pax max.

zraver
04 Mar 13,, 03:45
Speaking of small arms - would a AP/AP Incendiary 0.50 be able to affect the APCs and WW2 armour?
Imagine a Barrett M82 (or the like) being issued to every company..

Some, especially prewar designs. But most could shrug a standard .50 ball from the the front. In fact at different times just about every army company but those in the USAR and USMC had anti-tank rifles along the lines of the Barret, some smaller, some bigger (up to 20mm).

back to OP, just thought of something. If an Abrams was sent back in time imagine the impact on the allied jet fighter programs. The AGT1500 is light years ahead of what anyone has. The computer controls and metallurgy is way to complex, but the compressor layout and other physical engineering items will be huge boost.

Tanker
04 Mar 13,, 04:13
Nice to see you think highly of the M1A1/A2....The Russians claimed the RPG-29 could open up an M1A2 with no worries. One hit an M1A1 in Iraq and made a tiny hole that gave the gunner a third degree burn on his face. I would assume that modern rounds are 3 or 4 times more powerful than their predecessors. M1A1/A2's engaged T72's at 3800m plus in Iraq and I think the plains of Europe, which the M1 was made for, would be no problems especially having the ability to engage targets miles away hull down.

In Russia the assault guns will have the edge if they can mass force and assault from as many directions as they can. Other wise coming across and open plain they are sitting ducks...But to digress, I would give the Germans the edge with Leopard 2's, Marder 1A3s, and the PzH2000.



Without air cover they would be dead meat. Top armor today is pretty much the same thickness and material it was then. Aircobra, Typhoon, Sturmovick, Stuka doesn't really matter which. Now if they had air cover and conventional support that is a different story. The only WWII era AFV's that could damage a modern MBT from the front would be the Soviet ISU-100Y with its naval 130mm gun or the SU/ISU-152. The SU-122, ISU-122, ISU-100, Jagdtiger, King tiger and jagdpanther, M36, Pershing and Super Pershing could probably score a kill from the side against the Abrams.

Much lower on the likelihood the Panther, T-34/85, Pz-IV/Stug III (and other kwk40 tracks), Firefly (and other 17lb gun tracks) and Sherman 76's might be able to get a side penetration depending on location and range but could probably get a rear penetration.

Panzerfaust or Bazooka could probably get a rear side penetration while the Panzershrek might be able to punch middle side.

AT mines for mobility kills and heavy artillery if it scores a top hit.

USSWisconsin
04 Mar 13,, 04:27
Panzerfaust or Bazooka could probably get a rear side penetration while the Panzershrek might be able to punch middle side.

The Panzerfaust (at least in the later versions) had more penetration than Panzershrek, but less range.

Tanker
04 Mar 13,, 05:05
The Abrams has an outer skin over the steel...many people don't know that. There were several pics released during the Iraq campaign from 2003 to 2009 where the turret looked blown to hell when in fact it was the skin on it.




The Panzerfaust (at least in the later versions) had more penetration than Panzershrek, but less range.


32200
This is not the RPG shot I commented on, just showing the skin.

zraver
04 Mar 13,, 13:57
The Abrams has an outer skin over the steel...many people don't know that. There were several pics released during the Iraq campaign from 2003 to 2009 where the turret looked blown to hell when in fact it was the skin on it.

Its not skin over steel, its steel over the modular armor package. Every Abrams has its ceramic (and DU) armor package replaced when it goes in for depot level zero mile rebuild (about once every 10 years)

Nice to see you think highly of the M1A1/A2....The Russians claimed the RPG-29 could open up an M1A2 with no worries. One hit an M1A1 in Iraq and made a tiny hole that gave the gunner a third degree burn on his face.[/quote]

I've seen two videos of an RPG-29 hit to an Abrams (A1 not A2). The first a frontal shot fails to penetrate but watching the the DU flash white is kinda cool. The second from the middle side hits the hull just below the turret ring and appears to penetrate. Though the loader not the gunner would be the one at risk.


I would assume that modern rounds are 3 or 4 times more powerful than their predecessors. M1A1/A2's engaged T72's at 3800m plus in Iraq and I think the plains of Europe, which the M1 was made for, would be no problems especially having the ability to engage targets miles away hull down.

yup

Chogy
06 Mar 13,, 00:33
I do believe small arms has had the least progress in terms of technology in the last 100 years when compared to the aircraft, the tank, and most of all, the electronics that make the latter two so much more effective.

The M2 heavy MG is still in use with few changes since 1933. I was watching an episode of Inside Combat Rescue, really excellent BTW, and was trying to identify the door gun used in the Sikorsky helicopters that the PJ's fly into battle. I was expecting a 240, did a real double-take when I saw what I thought was a 1919, then realized it had to be an M2, one of the high rate of fire aerial variants similar to that used in WW2 as bomber defensive weapons.

Here's a link (http://www.bagram.afcent.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2012/08/120818-F-AO544-229.jpg) to a nice image.

"Stuff that would appear to be magic to WW2 troops and scientists":
- Anything with a transistor or microchip
- Anything with a flat TFT color display; an iPad
- Simple Motorola radios
- GPS units
- Modern thermal and IR night vision
- Satcom
- Drones
- modern guided missiles like Javelin

Truly, it is digital electronics that have revolutionized weapons systems, and it has all taken place in a tiny period of time, only 45 years or so.

TopHatter
06 Mar 13,, 00:40
The sheer sophistication of drones, sure. But the military started working with "drones" back in WW I in the shape of guided-bombs.

bigross86
06 Mar 13,, 00:53
GPS would be less than worthless without the satellites.....

astralis
06 Mar 13,, 03:51
chogy,


- Anything with a transistor or microchip
- Anything with a flat TFT color display; an iPad
- Simple Motorola radios
- GPS units
- Modern thermal and IR night vision
- Satcom
- Drones
- modern guided missiles like Javelin

of all this, frankly, transistor/microchip, and thermal/IR vision stand out.

everything else could be explained as a fancier version of already present 1940s technology.

IPad = carryable TV and computer! (they wouldn't understand the internet.)
Motorola radios = a really really small, portable version of a 1940s radio
GPS = a bigger stretch, but communication by satellite (the idea of satellites was already known)

etc etc.

they'd be awed at internet capability and wouldn't understand what it all meant, but could roughly imagine it to be a visual version of using a telephone, for instance.

they'd be damned impressed by the miniaturization, but could understand it.

magic would be things like lasers, current day transistors, things that just had no real analogue.

zraver
06 Mar 13,, 03:57
chogy,



of all this, frankly, transistor/microchip, and thermal/IR vision stand out.

The late war German tech had the Panther G Uhu IR reciever with a half track IR illuminator. The USAAF/USAF had IR detection technology by 1947 and may have had it earlier. They had IR units in some B-29 test beds that would lead eventually to the first IR homing missiles

Albany Rifles
06 Mar 13,, 04:21
Berlin by 44, if Kalashnikov can come up with the gas system. The war wasn't won with tanks but with infantry.


I could make the argument that the war was won by artillery.

Your welcome, Gunny

lemontree
06 Mar 13,, 05:18
If one would have to face modern tanks with WW2 equipment then the following would have to be done to gain tactical advantage:-

- Pull back when faced with superior enemy (read equipment), redeploy in hilly/ mountain terrain or built up areas. Allowing own deployment of armour/ AT weapons to close in for top attack kills and close ambush by tanks.
- Use arty and hit and run raids typical of nodal point defence on enemy investing around the area.
- Use LRDG type raids/ air assault on enemy arty/logistics points.

The M1s will grind to a halt without the supply of fuel, water and food for the crew.

zraver
06 Mar 13,, 06:00
Really? Why no composite armor on the top? :confused:

Sorry I missed this. The Abrams is a product of the Cold War where a top attack was the least common type of threat because only two platforms could deliver it- air and arty. Both are fairly uncommon compared to infantry and vehicle AT systems. Even when they are present they have much more limited ability to sustain an attack. Throughout the Cold War the principal Soviet arty and air weapons were not far removed from WWII. Where air in particular had very low kill rates vs armor. Arty had better kill rates but there was a lot less of it in Soviet formations in the Cold War. During the battle of Berlin the Soviet had 40,000+ artillery tubes spread among 196 divisions. Nothing in the Cold War even came close.

On the modern battlefield there are more and more top down attack weapons so protection is being rethought and will evolve.

Big K
06 Mar 13,, 13:37
32221

might not be relevant but it is quite good isnt it?

Albany Rifles
06 Mar 13,, 15:19
Big K,

Is that a T-7Tree?

Doktor
06 Mar 13,, 15:48
Nice catch.

Big K
06 Mar 13,, 15:51
Big K,

Is that a T-7Tree?

AR,

i dunno which T-7'ish but it seemed nice to put it here :)

TopHatter
06 Mar 13,, 17:10
might not be relevant but it is quite good isnt it?

Seems legit

1979
06 Mar 13,, 20:55
Sorry I missed this. The Abrams is a product of the Cold War where a top attack was the least common type of threat because only two platforms could deliver it- air and arty. Both are fairly uncommon compared to infantry and vehicle AT systems. Even when they are present they have much more limited ability to sustain an attack. Throughout the Cold War the principal Soviet arty and air weapons were not far removed from WWII. Where air in particular had very low kill rates vs armor. Arty had better kill rates but there was a lot less of it in Soviet formations in the Cold War. During the battle of Berlin the Soviet had 40,000+ artillery tubes spread among 196 divisions. Nothing in the Cold War even came close.


But they had a lot of costumers world wide , artillery transfers to socialist states were close to that figure :

5198 -152 mm
3405- 100 mm
1278- 132 mm
17,149-122 mm
5213-130 mm
924 -160 mm
1128-140 mm
2486-120 mm

Stitch
06 Mar 13,, 23:26
The late war German tech had the Panther G Uhu IR reciever with a half track IR illuminator. The USAAF/USAF had IR detection technology by 1947 and may have had it earlier. They had IR units in some B-29 test beds that would lead eventually to the first IR homing missiles

The so-called Sperber or Uhu systems were actually self-contained units (except for the power supply); the system had a low-powered (12V) auto-type headlight with a screen over it, and an IR receiver on the same mounting. Apparently, Sperber was used on Panthers, and Uhu was used on half-tracks.

32229

In addition, there were portable variants of the IR gear, called Zielgerät 1229, or Vampir, that were used with StG. 44's and MP-42's late in the War.

32230

zraver
07 Mar 13,, 00:50
The so-called Sperber or Uhu systems were actually self-contained units (except for the power supply); the system had a low-powered (12V) auto-type headlight with a screen over it, and an IR receiver on the same mounting. Apparently, Sperber was used on Panthers, and Uhu was used on half-tracks.

My apologies, thought the system had an illuminator.

Gun Grape
08 Mar 13,, 01:52
The late war German tech had the Panther G Uhu IR reciever with a half track IR illuminator. The USAAF/USAF had IR detection technology by 1947 and may have had it earlier. They had IR units in some B-29 test beds that would lead eventually to the first IR homing missiles

Starting in 1943 the US used the M-1 IR Sniperscope.

Triple C
08 Mar 13,, 06:06
When did Soviets developed IR for small arms? A book that doesn't cite any sources say that the communist troops in the Korean War would try to pick off US snipers at night by spotting their IR emitters.

Chogy
08 Mar 13,, 16:24
Starting in 1943 the US used the M-1 IR Sniperscope.

I often wondered why the anemic carbine was used for this cutting-edge equipment, and then I found the quite simple answer... the useful effective range of the IR illuminator was only 100 to 200 yards max, which fits in perfectly with the .30 carbine round.

It'd be overkill on a Garand or '03-A3.

My neighbor has a Vietnam vintage passive starlight scope that still works, and works very well. Really cool technology.

Tanker
08 Mar 13,, 17:06
I did an interview with a WWII/Korean War vet who used one on Okinawa and then was handed one in Korea. he said the carbine (M3) was so heavily modified that it fired like crap and they had to work in tandem with guys carrying Garands. He said when they found out he working knowledge of them they handed him one in Korea. I was commissioned by this guy's son to make a 1/6th scale version of him for his den.


I often wondered why the anemic carbine was used for this cutting-edge equipment, and then I found the quite simple answer... the useful effective range of the IR illuminator was only 100 to 200 yards max, which fits in perfectly with the .30 carbine round.