WW2 armor and anti-armor VS. modern equipment

[zraver]

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]

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]

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]

So, again, how many MBTs we talk about here?

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

[bigross86]

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]

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.


IAI engineers testing a Heron-1 UAV

[chanjyj]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Imagine the impact of a single case of M14 battle rifles to US authorities in 1941...

[astralis]

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

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]

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

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]

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?