22 ms·

Out of curiosity: suppose a modern tank was (magically) transported to WWII. Would it be essentially invincible against the weapons of that era? (Addendum: I d

Out of curiosity: suppose a modern tank was (magically) transported to WWII. Would it be essentially invincible against the weapons of that era? (Addendum: I do appreciate that repeated weapons impacts will degrade any type of armor over time.)

edaemon 5y ago
Yes and no. If the Germans had some well-fortified position only to see a T-72B3 fitted with explosive reactive armor and an active protection system roll in? Yes, in that case, the Germans are toast. In practical terms they would not be able to damage the tank. It isn't invincible, though. The tracks on any tank are vulnerable and the engine is (relatively) fragile. A lucky HEAT shot or a well-placed anti-tank mine could disable it, though I don't they could score an outright kill.
AmpsterMan 5y ago
I suspect they would be invincible for sure. Keep in mind that modern main battle tanks are typically heavier than WW2 tanks, carry guns that are almost twice in diameter (76mm for the late war Sherman's vs 120mm for M1A1/2/3 Abrams) are much faster, have vastly improved electronics and night vision, counter measures, etc.
- sofixa 5y ago
  > 76mm for the late war Sherman's vs 120mm for M1A1/2/3 Abrams And the Shermans were notoriously undergunned. The Germans had 88mm guns on tanks since 1942 with the Tiger I, and had anti-tank guns up to 126mm (which was even mounted on the Jagdtiger tank destroyers ( of course as everything late war German, in pitiful numbers)). The Soviet KV-2 had a 152mm howitzer in 1939, and anti-tank guns up to 100mm. The IS-2 had a 122mm gun, and was used since 1944. Today's main battle tanks are closer to heavy WW2 tanks ( in terms of size, armament, protection, etc.), so compare apples with apples, shall we :p
  - throw1234651234 5y ago
    I am guessing you already know this, given all the information that you have posted, but "caliber parity" alone would not be sufficient to penetrate an Abrams/T-90/Chally/whatever. Today's 120mm rounds are kinetic-penetrator sabot rounds* (link below if someone really wants the details and naming conventions). The point is that this round is way longer than WWII tank rounds and functions completely differently. None of the tanks you listed would penetrate a modern tank from the front (100%), I would guess they are unlikely to penetrate from any aspect, but I am not ready to provide data proving that. Note that even T-72s are currently being updated specifically to be able to use LONGER rounds, and every developed country has chosen to BYPASS 150+mm cannons in favor of using longer 12x rounds. We can also get fancy and talk about active protection systems (APS), which would defend against slow WWII rounds as well as they protect against RPGs since the 90s. Though, no one but Israel has really fielded APS in serious numbers since the USSR pioneered the concept. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour-piercing_fin-stabilized_discarding_sabot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour-piercing_fin-stabilized...
  - greedo 5y ago
    The only thing a WW2 era tank could do to an M1 would be a mobility kill. Treads, optics or engine. Eventually the M1 would run out of 120mm rounds, then there becomes a more realistic chance of disabling it.
slongfield 5y ago
No---an effective anti-tank weapon is a ditch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_trench https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_trench You might need to make a bigger one for a modern tank than a WWII tank, but the tools to make big holes have been around for a while.
- greedo 5y ago
  You'd need an awful lot of ditches, since tanks have high mobility. And were actually designed to counter trench warfare tactics.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    MBTs have standardized dimensions. Trenches have flexible dimensions. You show me an MBT, and I'll design a ditch it can't cross. (Which is the entire point of combat engineers. But as you point out, given the speed of modern MBTs, it's easier to flank static anti-tank defenses like ditches)
    - greedo 5y ago
      The role of combat engineers isn't to stop tanks, but to funnel tanks and AFVs into kill zones. Since WW2 era gear can't really kill a tank, it's pointless. The best a CE could do would hope for a mine to damage a track.
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        Turn it the other way around. The role of modern combat engineers is to get MBTs (and infantry) through obstacles. A ditch isn't very effective if the far side is dynamited into a slope.
        greedo 5y ago
        Potato Potahto. Sure on offense engineers are tasked with clearing obstacles, that's a given. On defense, the role is reversed.
Erwin 5y ago
Not WWII, but how about tanks, helicopters versus Samurais? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An3t39SGSUE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An3t39SGSUE
adolph 5y ago
No, a modern main battle tank would still be vulnerable to arty, a leg with a grenade, poor crew decisions, etc. depending on a favorable setup (no adversary air or arty, able keep distance from dismounts) it would dominate for a couple hours and then laws of logistics take over.
glenneroo 5y ago
Your question reminds me of Rome Sweet Rome: https://www.reddit.com/r/RomeSweetRome/ https://www.reddit.com/r/RomeSweetRome/ It started out as someone on AskReddit asking how modern military would fare against ancient Roman military. The full story is on the right side of that sub-reddit under the section FAQ as a PDF, or here's the first section: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/k067x/could_i_destroy_the_entire_roman_empire_during/c2giwm4/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/k067x/could_i_de... A lot of people are still (after 9 years) waiting for the studio who acquired the rights to actually make a movie or a series based on the story (which Prufrock451 sold, good for him/her!). I for one hope Netflix/HBO/Amazon picks it up and makes a series out of it someday.
throw1234651234 5y ago
If you mean in tank-to-tank combat, then yes. Specifically, when deployed at night (thermals) on flats (firing out of enemy detection range) - it would be able to make its kills and retreat faster than it can be chased. In direct combat, nothing short of a direct artillery hit (unlikely) could kill it or render it unable to defend itself in the short term. Let's say it got ambushed by 3 AT teams within 50 meters - the AT RPGs / recoil-less rifles of the time could do nothing to the armor, even rear. In reality, any super-weapon, and its supply chain would be hit with massed artillery, bombing runs, and special forces. It also has vulnerable optics and tracks as was mentioned earlier. Furthermore, even if it took out 40 tanks (each round is a kill), it would not be significant in a major WWII engagement. Btw, this topic has been discussed ad-nauseum elsewhere.
mbrodersen 5y ago
It wouldn’t last long without modern logistics to supply ammunition, spare parts, fuel etc. Very few people in modern armies actually do any fighting. The vast majority is logistics/support.

edaemon 5y ago

Yes and no. If the Germans had some well-fortified position only to see a T-72B3 fitted with explosive reactive armor and an active protection system roll in? Yes, in that case, the Germans are toast. In practical terms they would not be able to damage the tank. It isn't invincible, though. The tracks on any tank are vulnerable and the engine is (relatively) fragile. A lucky HEAT shot or a well-placed anti-tank mine could disable it, though I don't they could score an outright kill.

AmpsterMan 5y ago

I suspect they would be invincible for sure. Keep in mind that modern main battle tanks are typically heavier than WW2 tanks, carry guns that are almost twice in diameter (76mm for the late war Sherman's vs 120mm for M1A1/2/3 Abrams) are much faster, have vastly improved electronics and night vision, counter measures, etc.

sofixa 5y ago
> 76mm for the late war Sherman's vs 120mm for M1A1/2/3 Abrams And the Shermans were notoriously undergunned. The Germans had 88mm guns on tanks since 1942 with the Tiger I, and had anti-tank guns up to 126mm (which was even mounted on the Jagdtiger tank destroyers ( of course as everything late war German, in pitiful numbers)). The Soviet KV-2 had a 152mm howitzer in 1939, and anti-tank guns up to 100mm. The IS-2 had a 122mm gun, and was used since 1944. Today's main battle tanks are closer to heavy WW2 tanks ( in terms of size, armament, protection, etc.), so compare apples with apples, shall we :p
- throw1234651234 5y ago
  I am guessing you already know this, given all the information that you have posted, but "caliber parity" alone would not be sufficient to penetrate an Abrams/T-90/Chally/whatever. Today's 120mm rounds are kinetic-penetrator sabot rounds* (link below if someone really wants the details and naming conventions). The point is that this round is way longer than WWII tank rounds and functions completely differently. None of the tanks you listed would penetrate a modern tank from the front (100%), I would guess they are unlikely to penetrate from any aspect, but I am not ready to provide data proving that. Note that even T-72s are currently being updated specifically to be able to use LONGER rounds, and every developed country has chosen to BYPASS 150+mm cannons in favor of using longer 12x rounds. We can also get fancy and talk about active protection systems (APS), which would defend against slow WWII rounds as well as they protect against RPGs since the 90s. Though, no one but Israel has really fielded APS in serious numbers since the USSR pioneered the concept. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour-piercing_fin-stabilized_discarding_sabot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour-piercing_fin-stabilized...
- greedo 5y ago
  The only thing a WW2 era tank could do to an M1 would be a mobility kill. Treads, optics or engine. Eventually the M1 would run out of 120mm rounds, then there becomes a more realistic chance of disabling it.

slongfield 5y ago

No---an effective anti-tank weapon is a ditch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_trench https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_trench You might need to make a bigger one for a modern tank than a WWII tank, but the tools to make big holes have been around for a while.

greedo 5y ago
You'd need an awful lot of ditches, since tanks have high mobility. And were actually designed to counter trench warfare tactics.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  MBTs have standardized dimensions. Trenches have flexible dimensions. You show me an MBT, and I'll design a ditch it can't cross. (Which is the entire point of combat engineers. But as you point out, given the speed of modern MBTs, it's easier to flank static anti-tank defenses like ditches)
  - greedo 5y ago
    The role of combat engineers isn't to stop tanks, but to funnel tanks and AFVs into kill zones. Since WW2 era gear can't really kill a tank, it's pointless. The best a CE could do would hope for a mine to damage a track.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Turn it the other way around. The role of modern combat engineers is to get MBTs (and infantry) through obstacles. A ditch isn't very effective if the far side is dynamited into a slope.
      - greedo 5y ago
        Potato Potahto. Sure on offense engineers are tasked with clearing obstacles, that's a given. On defense, the role is reversed.

Erwin 5y ago

Not WWII, but how about tanks, helicopters versus Samurais? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An3t39SGSUE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=An3t39SGSUE

adolph 5y ago

No, a modern main battle tank would still be vulnerable to arty, a leg with a grenade, poor crew decisions, etc. depending on a favorable setup (no adversary air or arty, able keep distance from dismounts) it would dominate for a couple hours and then laws of logistics take over.

glenneroo 5y ago

Your question reminds me of Rome Sweet Rome: https://www.reddit.com/r/RomeSweetRome/ https://www.reddit.com/r/RomeSweetRome/ It started out as someone on AskReddit asking how modern military would fare against ancient Roman military. The full story is on the right side of that sub-reddit under the section FAQ as a PDF, or here's the first section: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/k067x/could_i_destroy_the_entire_roman_empire_during/c2giwm4/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/k067x/could_i_de... A lot of people are still (after 9 years) waiting for the studio who acquired the rights to actually make a movie or a series based on the story (which Prufrock451 sold, good for him/her!). I for one hope Netflix/HBO/Amazon picks it up and makes a series out of it someday.

throw1234651234 5y ago

If you mean in tank-to-tank combat, then yes. Specifically, when deployed at night (thermals) on flats (firing out of enemy detection range) - it would be able to make its kills and retreat faster than it can be chased. In direct combat, nothing short of a direct artillery hit (unlikely) could kill it or render it unable to defend itself in the short term. Let's say it got ambushed by 3 AT teams within 50 meters - the AT RPGs / recoil-less rifles of the time could do nothing to the armor, even rear. In reality, any super-weapon, and its supply chain would be hit with massed artillery, bombing runs, and special forces. It also has vulnerable optics and tracks as was mentioned earlier. Furthermore, even if it took out 40 tanks (each round is a kill), it would not be significant in a major WWII engagement. Btw, this topic has been discussed ad-nauseum elsewhere.

mbrodersen 5y ago

It wouldn’t last long without modern logistics to supply ammunition, spare parts, fuel etc. Very few people in modern armies actually do any fighting. The vast majority is logistics/support.