First is morale: the effectiveness of this tank is such that it would induce heavy fear in an enemy (and probably be referred to as magic). There are a few where the number of troops involved is high enough that the tank itself wouldn't win the battle, but the tank would skew the battle heavily in a few manners. I'm actually having problems finding an example of a single battle that this tank wouldn't have a profound impact on up until the 1900's. I doubt roads are too considerable, at least not ones this tank wouldn't rip to pieces. This is an optional mounted remote device, fits into the category above. Enemy infantry and cavalry would be mowed down incredibly quickly. Up until the development of tanks, there is very little out there that has the ability to stop one of these rounds. Limiting factor here is 49 rounds is the standard carry out The range on this puts any form of ancient artillery to shame and it's accurate enough that targets like 'enemy general' could easily be obtained and eliminated with a high explosive round. This would have some pretty impressive effects when targeting castle walls. This is of lesser use as it's ultimately an anti-tank weapon and we're taking it to times where anti-tank isn't really a requirement. Quick look at the Challenger II's weapons: Bait it off somewhere it won't be useful in the battle.distract it.blind it.etc.Īgain, with proper planning and finitely possible to make a huge difference in WWII.but if you don't deploy it to the right places, it might be making a difference in battles that don't matter. It would take VERY careful planning, because once the enemy determined that they couldn't kill the tank, they would make plans to work around it. Or rolling it into the middle of the Battle of the Bulge. So, while the Challenger would be functionally unkillable versus WWII armament, the real question is this: Can a single 'irregular' unit change the tide of a war? The answer is 'if you sent it to the right places, yes.' And if you have foreknowledge of how battles will play out.imagine landing an unkillable tank on the beaches at Normandy. So, if you can see the enemy command post, the Challenger can probably wipe it off the map. And, of course, modern shells pack more of a punch than WWII shells do, so its fire would do a lot more damage, and be massively more precise (thanks to modern computing systems handling the targeting for you). Simply put, a Challenger could lay waste to an enemy tank squad before they were even close enough to reliably hit it, shrug off their fire if they did get in range, and outrun enemy tanks if necessary. At 2.5km range, a Tiger's gun only had about a 30% chance of hitting a target, and the shot had lost so much power, it had negligible penetration capabilities.Īdd in that the Challenger is faster than the Tiger, despite being heavier and much more heavily armed and defended, and has 4-5x the travel range on a single tank of gas.and you are dealing with a tank that would be functionally invincible in WWII.especially if your weekly resupply included spare armor to replace any bits that got dinged up by enemy fire. The Abrams uses a smoothbore cannon, the Challenger has a rifled cannon.thus it can safely be assumed that the Challenger has superior range and accuracy as compared to the Abrams. And an Abrams can reliably swat targets at ranges greater than 2.5km. I couldn't find specifics on its range, but it is said to be at least as good as an Abrams, if not better. Even at point blank range, a Tiger would be incapable of cracking the armor of a Challenger II.Ĭonversely, the main gun on a Challenger would hardly notice the armor on a Tiger. ![]() ![]() The thinnest armor on an Abrams is 600mm, and is made of an armor that is suggested to be twice as tough as steel. The Challenger II's armor is classified, but it is said to be more heavily armored than the US Abrams. The main gun on the Tiger, generally regarded as the most formidable tank cannon in the entire war, firing armor piercing ammunition, was rating to be able to pierce 171mm of steel armor at 100m. A Modern Main Battle Tank doesn't generally notice such minor inconveniences.Īrmor and weapon penetration has advanced by great leaps since World War II. For example, most WWII tanks were completely helpless if they hit a muddy field, and some could easily get stuck on trenches. Tank technology was still relatively new as of World War II, and they had a lot of problems. However, comparing the Tiger to a Challenger II is, to quote a blogger, 'like comparing a Model-T to a Porsche for a race.' Generally, the German Tiger Heavy Tank is regarded as the toughest tank from that era. Honestly, I think that a modern Main Battle Tank could have been a game changer in World War II, despite your concerns.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |