Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Eric

WWII Tiger II vs Modern Tanks

Recommended Posts

Please don't use movies as a reference.  Panzers burned gas just like the vast majority of M4s. The diesel powered M4s went to the Russians and the Marines. 

 

The T26 was developed during the war, and a few IIRC under 50 were sent to Europe for testing. They didn't fit anything the US Army had in service (bridges, transports, ships etc) and had some teething troubles. Main one off the top of my head was engine cooling.

 

Firefly was around, but there was a really good reason the US didn't adopt it. It was a mess,
 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The posts above with The Chieftan's videos are great stuff - he's both deeply knowledgable and fun to listen to, highly recommended. 

To Eric's original question about 1:1 combat, I think a modern tank's thermal imaging rig is probably the single biggest difference-maker in many situations - the ability to see your opponent at range, before he has any chance of seeing you - that gives you every possible advantage. 

As The Chieftan famously said (ok, famous among tank-nerds) "Whoever gets off the first shot generally wins a tank engagement. He has time to set his sights, pick his moment, and engage from optimum range. At that point, the guy getting shot at is having a powerful emotional experience, and has to try to figure out where the fire is coming from, get his gun aimed, and respond, all while the shooter is taking his next shots." I'm paraphrasing, can't be bothered to go look up the full quote. 

I'd say next up is the armor, being essentially invulnerable from the front is a massive advantage in 1:1 combat. 

Ultimately, the reality is (and was in WW2) that Shermans routinely beat Tigers and Panthers that notionally outgunned them, just by being in good running condition when they arrived at the battlefield, with full fuel tanks and ammo racks. The Sherman's automotive reliability combined with Allied logistics capability was an earth-shattering advantage, in that you could leave your laager with 100 Shermans, and have 95 Shermans arrive 100 miles down the road a few hours later, with plenty of fuel and ammo to re-stock. 

Tigers and Panthers never even came close to that level of arriving in good condition, ready to fight - they were automotive nightmares with amazing guns on top. 

If you have 50 Tigers and only 10 of them arrive in fighting condition, it doesn't much matter if the 10 Tigers are 2.5x better than whatever they were supposed to fight. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't really understand why we mess with tanks anymore since a man carried missile can take any of them out.  None of them can hold up to a TOW or Javellin.
Shock & awe

Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TBO said:

Shock & awe

Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk
 

I’ll defer to anyone with armor experience, but my understanding was always that the benefit of tanks isn’t that they can’t be destroyed. 

It’s that they require the other guy to get serious, put on his big-boy pants, set up a serious, crew-served weapon or a big-ass mine or whatever, and then take their best shot at killing it. 

If you’re not equipped to take on tanks, they’ll roll right over you. 

If you think you’re equipped to take on tanks, you’d better be right about that, or they’ll roll over you. 

And if you are right about being equipped to take on tanks, you’re that much less ready to take on infantry, artillery, helicopters and close air support... and you’d better have enough missiles or whatever you’re using to kill tanks until they stop coming after you, or...

They’ll roll over you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At what point in the evolution of post-war tanks did the new tanks start outclassing the a Tiger II to the point that the Tiger would have almost no chance of survival? How would an M-48, or T-62 compare, for instance?
What would an engagement between a Tiger II and a modern MBT look like?
 
Just something a video I saw earlier got me thinking about. What do you think?
 
The 48/62 would have wiped the floor with the Tiger.

There were already considerable advances in:

Armor plating- both materials and design

Fire control systems -faster more accurate range finding, early main gun stabilization began finding it's way to tanks as early as the British Centurion. Also night vision.

Ammunition - armor defeating main gun ammunition & the guns themselves were a big step forward.

Sincerely

Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2020 at 7:21 PM, Hauptmann6 said:

Please don't use movies as a reference.  Panzers burned gas just like the vast majority of M4s. The diesel powered M4s went to the Russians and the Marines. 

I wasn't.  I was trying to point out how movies are often inaccurate at this stuff.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...