|
Pornographic Memory posted:Shermans are all well and good, but how many tank destroyers would it take to take down an M1? One if you shot it out of a trebuchet at the tank.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
wdarkk posted:The side isn't going to work, even other Abrams couldn't penetrate the side armor in the Gulf War. I couldn't find info about the rear in a cursory search, but it only has to have 147mm of protection to beat the Sherman. Track hits and then staying the hell away are the Sherman's only hope. Meh. Just wait for the Abrams to run out of gas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Shermans are all well and good, but how many tank destroyers would it take to take down an M1? The "best" US tank destroyer has a penetration (at a 30° angle at 457 meters of range) of 244mm. The M1A1 has a frontal protection of 700mm vs HEAT (and apparently comparable side protection) so it's going to come down to "what's the armor on the back like?" I am actually having a lot of trouble finding any info on the rear armor. Interestingly the Sherman and the 90mm Gun Motor Carriage M36 are both faster than the M1 by a small amount, so it's possible for them to get around it even if it's trying to move to keep them away from its rear. They have to stop to shoot accurately though. Phanatic posted:Meh. Just wait for the Abrams to run out of gas. Yeah, that's the big weakness of gas turbines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
Weren't some M1 tanks disabled by friendly fire to the rear from Bradleys during the Gulf War? How does the penetration of a Bushmaster cannon compare to the Sherman?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
I was under the impression that even other M1s have difficulty penetrating an M1s armor. I can't remember specifically where I read this but I remember reading about an M1 in Iraq that was stuck and another M1 tried to destroy it but couldn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
Alekanderu posted:Weren't some M1 tanks disabled by friendly fire to the rear from Bradleys during the Gulf War? How does the penetration of a Bushmaster cannon compare to the Sherman? I can't find a source for that claim. I also am having trouble finding numbers for the M242. It's rated for penetration of 60mm at 2km, but 2km is a long way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
The rear armour of the M1 is like non-existent or something. People like to quantify modern MBT armour in terms of RHA steel, like WWII tanks. But it doesn't work on the same physics. But you can be sure that a WWII tank isn't going to be able to do damage to an MBT, unless they hit one of those unarmoured areas. Also, the quality of optics and targeting in a modern tank is miles above the stuff 60 years ago. Range-finding is the biggest thing, a Sherman crew has to figure it out just by lobbing shells and seeing where they land. The M1 has a computer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
Really the correct solution is to drain the fuel from the Shermans and have the crews Molotov the gently caress out of the M1. I know it has protections against that but surely it can't withstand being constantly bombarded with flaming petrol.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Why didn't the British have tank destroyers, apart from the ridiculous Archer? As well, why didn't the assault gun concept catch on with the Western Allies? Is it somewhat accurate to assume that the infantry-support-role thing of the Shermans and Churchills and whatnot was the assault gun equivalent?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
A significant part of what might be called TD gun development by the British were the AT series of armored vehicles by Nuffield, culminating with the A39 Tortoise. They did have a few 'tank destroyers' such as the archer, but they primarily used the M10 and the Achilles variant of it that had a 17lbr, I believe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Why didn't the British have tank destroyers, apart from the ridiculous Archer? As well, why didn't the assault gun concept catch on with the Western Allies? Is it somewhat accurate to assume that the infantry-support-role thing of the Shermans and Churchills and whatnot was the assault gun equivalent? The Germans did it because it was cheap to just make tank hulls and put guns on them. Turreted tanks are also naturally more suited too going on the offensive, so the Allies didn't need those hidey-shooty-turny Stugs. Stugs totally rocked the Allies though. They were so small that they could hide pretty much anywhere, and whenever a Sherman got knocked out from somewhere unseen, people assumed there was a Tiger around or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Mustang posted:I was under the impression that even other M1s have difficulty penetrating an M1s armor. I can't remember specifically where I read this but I remember reading about an M1 in Iraq that was stuck and another M1 tried to destroy it but couldn't. There was a case where an M1 was immobilized and it was decided to destroy the vehicle in-place rather than try to recover it. Actually, there were a number of such cases, but the one you're probably thinking of was where another M1 went up and fired multiple rounds of APFSDS at it. Hit the ammunition stowage, but the blowout system worked and just vented all that outside. They eventually called up a plane to put a couple of Maverick missiles into it. I think the only lost M1 where the entire crew died was when they drove one into a canal and they all drowned. Alekanderu posted:Weren't some M1 tanks disabled by friendly fire to the rear from Bradleys during the Gulf War? How does the penetration of a Bushmaster cannon compare to the Sherman? Not sure about that, but Bradleys did get kills on T-55 tanks by hits to the turret ring (supposedly they got some T-72s the same way at close range but I'm not sure I buy that). HVAP out of the Sherman's 76mm was good for about 120mm at 1000 yards, the M242 firing APDS is about 30mm at the same range.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Shermans are all well and good, but how many tank destroyers would it take to take down an M1? It will need a lucky shot, but I reckon one IS-152 can possibly do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
A KV-2, with a properly placed shell hitting from above, would ruin anyone's day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Meh. Just wait for the Abrams to run out of gas. Just cripple the suspension with HE, and then the Shermans can drive off to take actual important objectives. Or pummel the tank until the crew surrenders due to concussions, it worked with KVs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:A KV-2, with a properly placed shell hitting from above, would ruin anyone's day. With the shell hitting from anywhere the concussive impact is going to ruin anyone's day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Why didn't the British have tank destroyers, apart from the ridiculous Archer? As well, why didn't the assault gun concept catch on with the Western Allies? Is it somewhat accurate to assume that the infantry-support-role thing of the Shermans and Churchills and whatnot was the assault gun equivalent? Same as with most others: their doctrine didn't call for turreted tank destroyers, which were a case of American exceptionality at its best. Early in the war, Brits did use portees (AT gun on a truck bed) which functioned a bit like tank destroyers, but more out of necessity than doctrine. They also did receive L&L tank destroyers, some of which they equipped with their own 17 pounder gun (Achilles). But most of all they didn't see benefit in specialized tank destroyers, apart from stuff like Archer which was only to fit a big gun on an old chassis. Eventually they managed to stick their excellent 17 pounder gun in a Sherman turret, even if they didn't initially have a HE shell available for it so it was more like having one tank destroyer in support of four tanks. Brits simply didn't see a problem with a Cruiser tank only having solid shot ammo for the main gun. Slim Jim Pickens posted:Stugs totally rocked the Allies though. They were so small that they could hide pretty much anywhere, and whenever a Sherman got knocked out from somewhere unseen, people assumed there was a Tiger around or something. StuGs have nothing compared to Hetzer*, a tank destroyer based on Czech tank chassis so small that it makes me wonder if the crews had to invent some version of "Don't ask, don't tell". The whole thing is barely two meters tall and has sloped glacis and sides. *probably not called by that name during the war. Likewise the M10 TD wasn't called Wolverine by US troops during the war - Brits called it that in their own use, but unlike the Civil War general meme, it didn't spread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
Yeah, it was never called Hetzer during the war, just Jagdpanzer 38t or G13.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Dolnstein was engaged against the Swedes. Regarding these weapons, often called a sword-staff, the notion of spears with big heads that you can cut with is very old, with references to 'hewing spears' in Viking-era sources, though no doubt they are older. It may also be such spears that Wace refers to as 'gisarmes' in the Roman de Rou. Another cool thing is that Peter Johnsson made a reconstruction: http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1248&postdays=0&postorder=asc quote:This is interesting because only the front ranks are shown with pikes lowered. Is that correct or is Dolnstein just being lazy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Regarding these weapons, often called a sword-staff, the notion of spears with big heads that you can cut with is very old, with references to 'hewing spears' in Viking-era sources, though no doubt they are older. It may also be such spears that Wace refers to as 'gisarmes' in the Roman de Rou.  And that reconstruction is super sweet bro, very pretty.It's interesting that sword-staves are purpose-made but Dolnstein, having no way of knowing that, just assumed they made them out of swords. Rodrigo Diaz posted:This is interesting because only the front ranks are shown with pikes lowered. Is that correct or is Dolnstein just being lazy?  If you care a lot you could ask the European martial arts thread, or the medieval milhist thread.Dolnstein seems like a naive observer (except for the part where he says that the king of Denmark totally knighted them all, you should have been there), so I want to say it's correct--but it doesn't look like anything else I've seen. Maybe his regiment did things differently, maybe they're about to advance and have not yet fully closed? Edit: Maybe it is correct and the representations I've seen so far (which were probably made as dramatic as possible) have misled me. Not to mention, of course, that I haven't seen half the hats or doublets like those his friends are wearing before, either. Given the state of things and our distance from the period, a lot of things happened that we won't see. I'll see if any of the drill manuals I own mention it. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:The side isn't going to work, even other Abrams couldn't penetrate the side armor in the Gulf War. I couldn't find info about the rear in a cursory search, but it only has to have 147mm of protection to beat the Sherman. Track hits and then staying the hell away are the Sherman's only hope. Actual performance of the M1's armor (edit: and all modern AP rounds) is classified. I'd add though that the speculations you're looking at are not for the HAP models. Also while I'm at it no WWII tank could even hope to hit a modern MBT except by dumb luck. That whole computer aided shoot on the move thing is pretty significant. bewbies fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
So, I was re-reading my copies of Harry Turtledoves Worldwar series and I had a question. How would Gulf War era technology (minus stealth) fare aginst WWII circa 1942? In the book the humans can't keep up with the alien forces in technology, but they manage to eke out a white peace, trading most of the world for their independance. The wiki article has more information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwar
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
They could if they shoot enough. When I get home, I might calculate how much they'd have to shoot. Edit: provided they sit still, of course. Ensign Expendable fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Dec 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:So, I was re-reading my copies of Harry Turtledoves Worldwar series and I had a question. How would Gulf War era technology (minus stealth) fare aginst WWII circa 1942? In the book the humans can't keep up with the alien forces in technology, but they manage to eke out a white peace, trading most of the world for their independance. The wiki article has more information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwar A novel about WWII era nations beating alien with superior tech isn't actually proof they could do it, you know?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:So, I was re-reading my copies of Harry Turtledoves Worldwar series and I had a question. How would Gulf War era technology (minus stealth) fare aginst WWII circa 1942? In the book the humans can't keep up with the alien forces in technology, but they manage to eke out a white peace, trading most of the world for their independance. The wiki article has more information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwar I've read these books. There are more significant factors than just tech vs tech like you're implying. The aliens have an enormous disadvantage in troops and have almost no ability to replace lost vehicles and aircraft, as well as only a very limited ability to replace ammunition. Just look at some of the numbers for the amount of fuel and ammunition expended during desert storm and you'll find that their invasion was basically doomed right from the onset, logistically. Doesn't matter how big and ridiculous your fleet of spaceships is, millions of tonnes of ammunition can't readily be replaced without the industry of nations. In contrast to this they basically landed just a few months pre-stalingrad (IIRC), right at the tail end of barbarossa, so the americans had yet to commit fully against japan or land troops in europe. Pretty much every combatant involved in WW2 still had a intact infrastructure and was about to ramp up weapon production and troop training significantly. They never really had a chance, the whole thing was doomed from the outset and I think that was Turtledove's intent because only obsessive nerds read his poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I think that was Turtledove's intent because only obsessive nerds read his poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
^^^^ A few of my friends with history degrees like to wargame his stuff for the sheer silliness value of putting utterly unrelated things on the table. AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Who wins in a fight, a single M1 or 16 Shermans? My money's on the M1 because it has better aim, maneuverability, and it would take a lot of hits or a lucky shot to incapacitate it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:So, I was re-reading my copies of Harry Turtledoves Worldwar series and I had a question. How would Gulf War era technology (minus stealth) fare aginst WWII circa 1942? In the book the humans can't keep up with the alien forces in technology, but they manage to eke out a white peace, trading most of the world for their independance. The wiki article has more information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwar Throw a Seawolf / Los Angeles submarine into the Pacific, destroy the Japanese navy before they even realize something's going on. Then nuke Tojo's house for good measure.  Those books sound really stupid even for military Sci-Fi. The aliens managed to harness the incredible energy required for interstellar travel but didn't think about utilizing it in warfare? OK. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Throw a Seawolf / Los Angeles submarine into the Pacific, destroy the Japanese navy before they even realize something's going on. Then nuke Tojo's house for good measure. Someone talk to Xenocides in the Let's Play thread. He had a game about Allied WWII Pacific submarine options that included a joke "Seawolf" counter. Played a few turns with it, ripped the IJN and its merchants a new one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:So, I was re-reading my copies of Harry Turtledoves Worldwar series and I had a question. How would Gulf War era technology (minus stealth) fare aginst WWII circa 1942? In the book the humans can't keep up with the alien forces in technology, but they manage to eke out a white peace, trading most of the world for their independance. The wiki article has more information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwar The historical simulation series 'Sid Meier's Civilization' allows you to test this and more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Throw a Seawolf / Los Angeles submarine into the Pacific, destroy the Japanese navy before they even realize something's going on. Then nuke Tojo's house for good measure. They already (almost) made this movie.  Ask Us About Military Alt-History: Here Be Dragons uPen fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
^^^^ Not quite EFB, since I saw it, but gently caress you for being faster  Davin Valkri posted:Someone talk to Xenocides in the Let's Play thread. He had a game about Allied WWII Pacific submarine options that included a joke "Seawolf" counter. Played a few turns with it, ripped the IJN and its merchants a new one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:There's few set battles, sure (for the people who may not know as much about this period, a single battle is quite costly and can decide a commander's entire career--they tend to weigh their options very carefully when considering one), but there's plenty of skirmishing, beating up quarters, or rolling up into a village and destroying the place. Also living off the land, forcing contributions from peasants, etc. Violence was hardly restricted to open battle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Actual performance of the M1's armor (edit: and all modern AP rounds) is classified. I'd add though that the speculations you're looking at are not for the HAP models. Shermans vs Abrams: Math time! One M1 Abrams and 16 M4 Shermans spawn in a featureless plain, N km apart (assume the Shermans are placed so closely that they can be approximated as a single point). The Shermans begin firing HE-fragmentation shells at the Abrams (which is broadsiding them so this exercise isn't ridiculously unfair), as fast as possible. How long would it take to incapacitate the Abrams? (Assume that the Shermans are either already ranged in). The M1 Abrams is about 8 meters long and 2.4 meters tall. The suspension takes up about half of that height, but half of the suspension is protected by skirt armour, so let's take it out of the equation (for bonus credit, repeat the question with the assumption that each ERA soaks up one hit, and the skirt behind it soaks up another hit). The Shermans are shooting at a 8 meter by 0.6 meter target. The following is my Soviet ballistics table for Lend-Lease guns. M48 HE is the last shell type on this page. Figures are given in meters of mean deviation, meaning that 50% of the shells will land inside the given range, and 50% will land outside. The first column is depth, the second is height, and the third is width. Every artilleryman knows the sequence 2, 7, 16, 25, 25, 16, 7, 2, the likelyhood of a shell striking in eight even sectors on a target. This sequence lets us be a little more precise than just a 50% guess.  Up until about 1000 meters, the Shermans' vertical deviation would mean that more than 50% of the shells would strike the suspension. The horizontal deviation is only 0.3 meters, meaning that all shots will land within a ~2 meter width, which is not a problem. Since we have 16 Shermans firing, 8 shells would hit on the first salvo, likely immobilizing the Abrams. However, the odds get progressively worse as the Shermans move away. At 3000 meters, they can only hope to hit anywhere on the Abrams 50% of the time. Brief internet Googling has told me that the Abrams can comfortably engage at a range of 4000 meters, so let's investigate that range. The Shermans have the vertical deviation of 5.5 meters at this point, meaning that the 50% deviation is nearly ten times bigger than the height of their target. Using the sequence above, you can reduce the range to roughly a quarter by taking a 50% hit to your hit chance, so at that range the Shermans have a 25% chance to hit with 2.75 meter deviation (or about the full height of the Abrams), a 12.5% chance to hit with 1.37 meter deviation, and a 6.25% chance to hit with 0.682 meter deviation (getting close!) and 3.125% chance of hitting roughly within the height of their target. Horizontally, they have much better odds. The 50% deviation is only 1.8 meters, so the 50% range of the shot is less than 4 meters, half of the width of an Abrams. Overall, they have a 72% chance to hit width-wise, and 3.125% chance of hitting height-wise, giving a total chance of 2.25%, or about 1 in 44. 16 Shermans firing would take about 3 volleys to achieve this. That is, if they are ranged in well enough. And the Abrams isn't moving (unless they can lead perfectly at 4 kilometers). Edit: corrected math. Ensign Expendable fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Dec 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Throw a Seawolf / Los Angeles submarine into the Pacific, destroy the Japanese navy before they even realize something's going on. Then nuke Tojo's house for good measure. It's reasonably well thought-out, I guess. The idea is the aliens are very slow and cautious in their social development and assume everyone else is the same. They send a probe which takes 500-odd years to return to their planet with data. They see that earth is basically in the middle age and assume nothing will change in the brief timespan of several centuries it takes them to get here. Bringing gulf-war-era weaponry and tech is, from their standpoint, being extremely over-cautious and over-prepared.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Casual nerds, surely? An obsessive nerd would demand a higher-quality product. This is true. I only liked his work until I realized it was just "find & replace X with Y". Kind of a fan of 1632 though, that got me into Europa Universalis 3, which led to CK2, which got me into paying more attention to this stuff overall.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Shermans vs Abrams: Math time! But how many jeeps does it take to beat an Abrams?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:And the Abrams isn't moving (unless they can lead perfectly at 4 kilometers). I mean, I appreciate the effort that went into that post (really, it was an interesting read), but this would be the big problem, the Abrams would be moving more or less constantly at 50km/h+ cross country. No manually operated gun would have a prayer of hitting anything at that range and speed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:But how many jeeps does it take to beat an Abrams?  One.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 09:59 |
|
|
If I had a fuckoff spaceship I definitely wouldn't bother screwing around with tanks and planes and poo poo, not when I could just incinerate anyone who doesn't immediately hand-over the gold/uranium/helium/animes with lasers and kinetic projectiles. Let the savages govern themselves, so long as they accept space-opium as payment for raw materials and Extraterritoriality for Reptillian citizens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2013 00:50
|
|
