User Panel
Posted: 10/16/2014 11:11:03 PM EDT
This falls in line with questions like, "what is the Confederacy had AK's?" Or, "If we had had P-51's in WWI...?"
What if a modern armored division of Bradleys and Abrams suddenly appeared in, oh, say 1943? |
|
View Quote I like the thought. And to the Debbie Downers out there saying "not this shit again," have a little fun and run with it. Panzerfaust vs ablative armor is just so damn intriguing |
|
They would run out of spare parts and ammo in short order and become combat ineffective.
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
this. accept for the fact that jet fuel wasnt invented. it would depend on how much diesel they could take from the germans. Turbines be thirsty yo! other than that. there is no real threat firepower-wise on the Germans side. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Merry Christmas, war's over! other than that. there is no real threat firepower-wise on the Germans side. Abrams is multi-fuel and could probably run on gas. |
|
Did the germans have a tank with a gun that could get through the Abrahms' armor?
|
|
Quoted: Abrams is multi-fuel and could probably run on gas. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Merry Christmas, war's over! other than that. there is no real threat firepower-wise on the Germans side. Abrams is multi-fuel and could probably run on gas. |
|
The Abrams would tear a new bunghole in everything that got into range but eventually they would get worn down through attrition. It's not like they didn't have armor piercing rounds in WW2 and often times the solution to armor penetration was just use a bigger gun. The Abrams has good armor in front but eventually they will get hit in the sides/rear and/or have track destroyed and become immobilized and destroyed in detail.
Bradleys would far much less well. They would be dangerous, yes but just about any large caliber weapon would penetrate them so they wouldn't last much longer than any other light scout vehicle of the era. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
The Abrams would tear a new bunghole in everything that got into range but eventually they would get worn down through attrition. It's not like they didn't have armor piercing rounds in WW2 and often times the solution to armor penetration was just use a bigger gun. The Abrams has good armor in front but eventually they will get hit in the sides/rear and/or have track destroyed and become immobilized and destroyed in detail. Bradleys would far much less well. They would be dangerous, yes but just about any large caliber weapon would penetrate them so they wouldn't last much longer than any other light scout vehicle of the era. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile View Quote Hell, I think a Bradley would kick some serious ass!!! Just the thermal imaging and maeuverability would help to mitigate losses... |
|
Haven't seen the movie, but the Abrams eventually gets knocked out by arty or anti-tank guns.
|
|
Quoted: Hell, I think a Bradley would kick some serious ass!!! Just the thermal imaging and maeuverability would help to mitigate losses... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: The Abrams would tear a new bunghole in everything that got into range but eventually they would get worn down through attrition. It's not like they didn't have armor piercing rounds in WW2 and often times the solution to armor penetration was just use a bigger gun. The Abrams has good armor in front but eventually they will get hit in the sides/rear and/or have track destroyed and become immobilized and destroyed in detail. Bradleys would far much less well. They would be dangerous, yes but just about any large caliber weapon would penetrate them so they wouldn't last much longer than any other light scout vehicle of the era. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Hell, I think a Bradley would kick some serious ass!!! Just the thermal imaging and maeuverability would help to mitigate losses... |
|
Quoted:
Hell, I think a Bradley would kick some serious ass!!! Just the thermal imaging and maeuverability would help to mitigate losses... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
The Abrams would tear a new bunghole in everything that got into range but eventually they would get worn down through attrition. It's not like they didn't have armor piercing rounds in WW2 and often times the solution to armor penetration was just use a bigger gun. The Abrams has good armor in front but eventually they will get hit in the sides/rear and/or have track destroyed and become immobilized and destroyed in detail. Bradleys would far much less well. They would be dangerous, yes but just about any large caliber weapon would penetrate them so they wouldn't last much longer than any other light scout vehicle of the era. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Hell, I think a Bradley would kick some serious ass!!! Just the thermal imaging and maeuverability would help to mitigate losses... It would be legitimate rape time when the sun went down |
|
Would be hell on tracks.
Until they ran out of ammo. Or broke down. |
|
|
They would still have a difficult time getting through the bocage country but once they were out their would sweep western Europe.
|
|
Quoted:
this. accept for the fact that jet fuel wasnt invented. it would depend on how much diesel they could take from the germans. Turbines be thirsty yo! other than that. there is no real threat firepower-wise on the Germans side. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Merry Christmas, war's over! other than that. there is no real threat firepower-wise on the Germans side. Germans didn't use diesel for tanks. Our M10 tank destroyers used diesel, so we had a bigger on hand supply then they did. |
|
View Quote 08th MS Team? |
|
We would be like Germany putting our faith in mircle weapons.
Simple fact is who ever produces the most and is able to deploy the most wins, no matter how effective such a weapon is in combat. The Germans had arguably the best tanks, gpmg's, the first modern assault rifle, and leading the world in jets and rocket technology. What did it get them? It's not that their tech was bad, just that their ability to mass produce and deploy those weapons burnt up recourses that could have deployed 10 "good enough" weapons for 1 mircle weapon to turn the tide of the war. A good example of this is the soviet T34 and mosin nagant. The t34 isn't a mircle tank, sure it had some nice features, but ultimately it was a tank just good enough to combat a tiger in numbers. The soviets were also able to man those tanks. Same can be said for the mosin. IMO it's probably the worst rifle out of all major players through out ww2. But the ability to produce huge numbers and arm the peasants was just good enough to keep them moving forward. To bring it back to point, sure an Abrams would dominate the battlefield, especially at night. But how many recourses would it burn to deploy a single Abrams compared to a platoon of Sherman's. An Abrams requires special fuel, special ammunition, and non standard parts to keep them going. Germans would quickly learn to concentrate fire on the Abrams or just avoid the areas they are deployed in, or target their extensive supply lines. Not to mention if some of those systems went down on the Abrams it's beyond 1940s tech to repair them. Tl;dr - if an Abrams was shipped back to ww2 the US still wouldn't deploy them. They would dissect them and learn the tech to create them, to make a better sherman or mass produce tank with a few modern features that were capable of being made in the 40s |
|
How many bridges of the era could the Abrams cross. What would pull it out of the muck when it got stuck?
|
|
Our M1Abrams of WWII turned out to be an atomic bomb. A game changer so to speak.
|
|
Quoted:
they can for short periods of time. the main problem is that jet fuel is thick like kerosene (mainly because it mostly is kerosene) and the engine driven fuel pump is designed to be lubricated by the fuel it moves. Gasoline is far to thin to keep that part alive for long periods of time. It would be better if it ran on at least diesel being the closest thing to jet fuel they would have on the battlefield on either side View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Merry Christmas, war's over! other than that. there is no real threat firepower-wise on the Germans side. Abrams is multi-fuel and could probably run on gas. Kerosene was available and if something like the Abrams was in use, you can damn well bet that logistics would have found a way to supply it to them. |
|
|
View Quote They did. After the war, the government covered it up. When the shock troops come to put you on the FEMA train, what do you think they'll be wearing? |
|
|
What if the Nazis had nukes first and had a plane with the range to hit the US?
|
|
A 500kg WWII bomb would destroy an Abrams.
Ammo would be a problem, modern lubricants etc.... Until it ran out of ammo, it would reign hell on everything. Best use of resources would be to hit tigers, king tigers and panthers. Leave the stug III's, pzrs 4's alone, they were on par with Sherman's and could easily be taken out by our weapons of the day. |
|
Quoted:
What if the Nazis had nukes first and had a plane with the range to hit the US? View Quote I would say the war would have been ended pretty quickly after that, and not in our favor. As for the Abrams are we talking one single abrams? Or all American tanks replaced with Abrams and men knowledgeable to run it? If it was the latter the next question would be do they start producing rounds for the Abrams? Or does each one have a limited number of rounds and will eventually run out of ammo? If they produced the Abram rounds and had the numbers of tanks and the men to use them I would say they could mop up all of Europe no problem with minimum casualties, as long as they didnt allow the Germans to devise some new anti-tank system that could punch through the modern armor. Bear in mind I have no military experience whatsoever and may be completely wrong. |
|
Whats the top speed of the Abrams vs the tiger? Seems to me it would run circles round them sourkrauts.
|
|
Shipped off to a base to be dissected and influence future tank design
|
|
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.