Timeline for In what war would one modern military vehicle make a difference?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21, 2019 at 20:12 | comment | added | Mark | @mikołak, any sufficiently-large cannon could score a mobility kill on a modern MBT, but prior to about mid-World War I, it would be purely a matter of chance. Gun mounts that permitted rapid traverse didn't exist until people needed to hit things like airplanes and tanks, so something like a 12-pounder Napoleon couldn't be aimed fast enough to hit a tank in motion. | |
| Sep 23, 2016 at 15:47 | history | edited | Twelfth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Aug 13, 2016 at 21:41 | comment | added | mikołak | @ryan : sorry for the late reply, completely missed it. You mention RPGs, which is something a time-traveling wouldn't encounter. It would, however, encounter e.g. massive metal projectiles, capable of warping more fragile elements. It's interesting that you also mention being stuck in a ditch-this is well within capabilities of medieval-level combat engineering! I guess my original conceit could be summarized thusly: the answer seems to ignore the fact that modern armor is optimized against modern countermeasures, and they are not always strictly "better" than historical ones, only different. | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 15:24 | comment | added | dsollen | I think this is the best answer. Some of the commenter forget another point made, prior to WW1 no one knew what a tank was. The lack of familiarity with it means an inability to know the ways to combat it. With knowledge and sufficient people you could try to overwhelm it with numbers and get to it's hatches or blind it (at heavy losses), but if you don't even know it's weak points... It doesn't need to kill everyone, it just needs to kill a few and everyone surrenders. No one is suicidal to go up against an unknown death machine that apparently can't be harmed! | |
| Jul 31, 2015 at 18:28 | comment | added | Ryan | @mikołak cont... It should be mentioned the RPG-29 was adopted by the USSR in 1989, and is one of just 3 systems made outside the US/British camps that is thought to be capable of damaging the composite armors on M1's and C2's. In fact the only time a C2 has been documented as taking significant damage was in a friendly fire incident where it was shot by another C2... For all intents and purposes before like 1970ish these tanks are made of unobtainium. | |
| Jul 31, 2015 at 18:23 | comment | added | Ryan | @mikołak have you read about what the M1Abrams and C2 tanks are armored with? In 2003 a C2 tank got stuck in a ditch in Iraq and was under heavy enemy fire for hours, including by RPG's and other 'modern' armor penetrating rounds... The crew remained completely unharmed and the tank was reported to have NOT suffered damage beyond the superficial. Even a C2 that got hit in the undercarriage in 2003, by an RPG-29. It returned to base under it's own power and was repaired and back in service the next day... These things are stupidly strong. cont... | |
| Jul 31, 2015 at 13:59 | comment | added | clem steredenn | "Generals in modern warfare vs tanks do not take front row roles in battle just for this reason" To be honest, they stopped doing that before the advent of tanks. | |
| S Mar 23, 2015 at 12:44 | history | suggested | Federico | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed grammar and punctuation
|
| Mar 23, 2015 at 8:58 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 23, 2015 at 12:44 | |||||
| Mar 22, 2015 at 10:27 | history | bounty ended | ArtOfCode | ||
| Mar 20, 2015 at 21:33 | comment | added | mikołak | @Twelfth : and I'd recommend not wasting precious time using HESH warheads on soft targets ;). Apart from that, it seems like I have been unclear in what I meant - the problem is not the gun's accuracy, the problem is making out who to shoot and when too shoot, especially in the chaos of "vintage" warfare. Also, your tank is now standing 8km from the battlefield - great: how are you managing to hit anything with the chain gun? To summarize: it seems to me now that the general problem with the answer and the comments are the cherry picking of ideal parameters without holistic consideration. | |
| Mar 20, 2015 at 18:49 | comment | added | Twelfth | @TheTerribleSwiftTomato - Read up on the cannon on the C2, it's one of the few rifled cannons. The gun is accurate within 5 meters of a target from 8km (pending round, the HESH/high explosive round has the 8km range..4km on armor piercing, was working on the assumption there isn't another armored target to hit). Might be notable that it doesn't say 8km, but 8km further than APFSDS rounds which would give it a 12km range. Modern computing makes this accurate, you aren't 'probably going to miss' most of the time. I'd recommend not firing a HESH round when a friendly unit is with 50 meters. | |
| Mar 20, 2015 at 8:41 | comment | added | mikołak | @Twelfth: fair as it may be, but firing at any moving formation from 5 km (which is at or even beyond maximum firing range of most MBTs) means you're probably going to miss or even worse, inflict some friendly fire. You can't both eat range advantage and have the firepower advantage, to clumsily paraphrase a known saying. | |
| Mar 19, 2015 at 23:42 | history | edited | Twelfth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2435 characters in body
|
| Mar 19, 2015 at 21:59 | comment | added | Twelfth | @SF. - I guess my answer does assume the rest of the army (that outnumbered the defenders 20:1 in this Vienna example) would protect this massively important asset while the modern crew in it rested...but I guess if the army ditched the tank in an open field and let it to it's own means to defend while the crew rests, then I could see this scenario coming about. After all, wasn't it common practice for the Ottoman forces to relocate their artillery to the surrounding countryside at night so it could be more easily raided? | |
| Mar 19, 2015 at 20:46 | comment | added | SF. | @Twelfth: It would need a decent infantry support though. An ambush, or an attack from a few directions, skilled use of terrain to approach unseen... plus three crews working in shifts? One lookout while the crew sleeps will need a good 30 seconds since spotting the surprise assault to responding with fire, and it would be all the time in the world the light cavalry would need, especially drawing attention (bait) from one side, then assaulting from the other. | |
| Mar 19, 2015 at 17:24 | comment | added | Twelfth | @SF - a nighttime raid would always be an issue regardless of the era, but the advanced optics on this tank would mean a person monitoring from inside the tank could easily detect enemies regardless of night time or not. A wary force wouldn't let an evening assault sneak through. | |
| Mar 19, 2015 at 17:02 | comment | added | Twelfth | @TheTerribleSwiftTomato - the assumption is the tank is capable of outranging any artillery that might be present during the time frame, and the c2 has pretty impressive armouring on it's treads...it's not invincible by any means, but it'd be a very lucky shot to damage them. | |
| Mar 19, 2015 at 9:27 | comment | added | SF. | As for "the largest battle", they would need to keep the tank a secret. Hussars were the open battlefield force of a charge, but Poland had light cavalry too, which was very mobile and could use terrain to great advantage. Good intel, then unseen approach on the tank at night, then a fast flanking charge, a black-powder bomb stuffed into the barrel of main cannon, several hits with a hammer to the machine gun and the tank would be completely crippled. | |
| Mar 19, 2015 at 9:20 | comment | added | SF. | Note there is a scatter-shot ammo (a'la shotgun pellets) for tanks. It's meant as anti-infantry weapon for the main cannon and is a terrifying weapon against tightly packed formations. It would easily kill a hundred soldiers of a phalanx in one shot. | |
| Mar 19, 2015 at 9:03 | comment | added | mikołak | A huge problem in this answer is the silent assumption of complete invulnerability of a modern MBT when no modern AT weapons are present. This is simply false - during the battle of Vienna, for example, both sides had enough (and powerful enough) artillery to inflict a mobility kill, or even a mission kill, by sustained fire. Tank threads, weapon systems, viewports, and sensors are not made of adamantium, they can be damaged by relatively low-tech means if one is disciplined and persistent enough. | |
| Mar 19, 2015 at 2:14 | comment | added | Alex Celeste | Against a massive cavalry charge, would you even use the main cannon? Show the enemy something they've never seen or imagined before and break a heavy cavalry charge by charging back with something incomprehensibly heavier. Using the tank as a battering ram could break and rout entire elite army divisions without even firing the guns, at the sight of the "unstoppable force" suddenly being smashed to pieces by what must look like the fist of the gods themselves. | |
| Mar 19, 2015 at 0:15 | comment | added | Peteris | In earlier times, you don't even need to participate in the major battles to change the fate of wars - a single tank + time machine be used can break a city siege (pummel holes in walls with HE rounds) that would otherwise take years; or simply arrive directly to the capitol of one combatant, punch through the gate, slaughter the limited numbers of local garrison (hundreds?) with a machine gun, fire a few cannon rounds at the main political/religious/cultural buildings and demand surrender. | |
| Mar 18, 2015 at 23:43 | history | edited | Twelfth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| S Mar 18, 2015 at 23:21 | history | suggested | Pascal Cuoq | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed grammar
|
| Mar 18, 2015 at 23:17 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 18, 2015 at 23:21 | |||||
| Mar 18, 2015 at 23:04 | history | edited | Twelfth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 673 characters in body
|
| Mar 18, 2015 at 20:42 | history | edited | Twelfth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 62 characters in body
|
| Mar 18, 2015 at 20:37 | history | answered | Twelfth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |