Wow, I thought I was the only one who remembered that.
How about a Merkava? Those things are pretty nasty.
Partially correct; the M-1 series would be succeptible to a track hit (a much smaller target, to be sure, and any such hit would probably be due more to “luck” than any deliberate desire on the part of the Tiger’s gunner to hit said track). As such, the M-1 could conceivably succumb to a “mobility kill.” The armor around the M-1’s engine compartment isn’t all that thick, either, so it is also concievable for a flank shot to cripple the engine/transmission system, as well, also resulting in a mobility kill.
If the M-1 were simply “tracked,” the M-1’s hydraulics and fire control system would still be operable, allowing the M-1 to locate and return fire, in all probability killing the Tiger. Even with the engine and hydraulics out, the M-1 series has full manual backups on the turret and gun controls, including a fairly decent optical sight, with which to continue the fight.
Again, partially correct. The APFSDS round, whether of the older Tungsten variety or newer DU, still generates considerable heat in its passage, and the Tiger has enough flammables to combust, perhaps even catastrophically.
Well, really, that can be said for just about any armored fighting vehicle under the right circumstances. The view from inside a tank, even an M-1, is quite limited, and in a close environment (urban fighting), an infantry heavy weapons team can get close enough to fire upon an AFV with relative impunity. This makes tank platoon teamwork and infantry support in close environments particularly important.
In open-country fighting, the “infantry threat” is much less prevalent, and a well-drilled and aware tank platoon/company can respond much more quickly and effectively to such threats.
The real danger are “obstacles” (ditches, rows of wire) which may obstruct an armor unit’s advance, while they call up engineer support to clear the obstacle, and any anti-tank mines which may have been placed. But the threat in those types of situations is more likely to be pre-plotted artillery. With the introduction of the mine plows on select tanks within a platoon/company, this danger is somewhat mitigated.
IN regards to astro’s question in the OP: most modern MBTs place a good deal of emphasis on crew survival, what with compartmentalized fuel and ammunion storage, as well as fire detection/supression systems, making the chance of a Tiger getting a catastrophic kill on just about any modern MBT fairly low.
Add in Thermal Imaging Systems of one type or another, and the M-1 (Leo, Challenger, Le Clerc, etc.) stand a good chance of detecting and engaging the Tiger before entering the Tiger’s effective engagement envelope.
Your question is along the lines of asking if a P-51 Mustang stands a chance against a modern jet fighter; sure, the six .50 caliber machineguns could, if many factors came together favorably for the P-51, shoot down a modern jet fighter. But the chances of all of those disparate factors coming together are highly improbable, bordering on the impossible, unless the jet pilot makes a critical mistake.
If I were mean-spirited, which I am not, I would ask how much gadgetry is needed to withstand a barrage of rocks and blow up a shanty.
On a serious note, does anyone have a link to some technical data on the French, Israeli, South Korean and other tanks that were mentioned? I’d lvoe to read more about those.
And was that other author stating that Russia had technological parity with the US in terms of airpower? I’d love to see a cite.
Apparently a lot. The Merkava is a seriously badass piece of hardware. (Simply appreciating the technology here)
The MK4 is the latest version debuting in 2004.
When fired in the conventional way , G’s with rpg7s had complained that again the americans were not playing fair and that the M1 abrams had science fiction deflector shields , for the amount of times that the rockets simply bounced off , or did no apparent damage.
When the G’s started to employ newer tactics , the sevens were aimed down from a height ,to the weaker areas of the Abrams , and at least one tank was disabled with an RPG7 fired right down the commanders hatch.
Declan
One final thought that occurred to me on the way home last night: an underbelly hit. You need the Abrams climbing out of a gully or over a steep embankment or similar, so it’s nose-high and its underside is exposed for a few seconds before it crashes down. Then you need the Tiger to score with a really difficult shot. Unless an Abrams has a disproportionately stronger floor than most AFVs, the 88 is in with a good chance.
(I also thought about the Abrams crossing a girder-type railway bridge, but I’m not sure it can nor if a Tiger in the valley below could possibly elevate enough to hit it.)
I have to declare an interest here as I work at a company involved (no, I’m not saying which one), but the usual comment is that the Typhoon has 80% of the Raptor’s capability for 20% of the cost.
So they fixed the radar not working in the clouds then 
or was that another tabloid invention to scare the taxpayers?
And in respect of the OP, I seem to recall at least one instance of a Bradley killing a T72 in the Iraq invasion using its gun. If a modern personnel carrier can defeat a 20-year old MBT by use of sophisticated ammunition and targeting systems, I think it’s fair to assume a modern MBT would make short work of a 60-year old tank. The only scenarios that would work out for the Tiger are the aforementioned track or engine mobility kill, a kill shot through the flooring, putting a shot down the main gun barrel or possibly hitting it just right with an HE shell when all the crew had their heads out of the hatches (leaving a barely scratched Abrams with the engine running but no crew).
All of those fluke shots are possible, but as Extank said would require the Abrams crew to be desperately unlucky or seriously incompetent. Personally I think the Tiger crew would have a better chance if they got out of their vehicle and ambushed the Abrams from close cover.
You’re not far off. When the Germans first rolled into Poland before WWII the locals, who were significantly ill-equipped for dealing with the armor threat, resorted to a highly successful if short-lived tactic. It consisted of grabbing a brick, sneaking around the back of a tank rapping on the hull next to the engine case. The smooth rhythmic thrum of the German tank engine was easily picked up by the citizen who would then tap in time to one of the firing engine cylinders, mimicking a thrown rod. The tank commander would immediately shut down the motor and the crew would emerge only to be stoned to death by a hail of brick sherds. This technique became known to the German soldiers as Panzer Klatschen. There’s no reason it wouldn’t also work on an M1A1 crew.
Apart from the fact that the Abrams has a gas turbine engine with no cylinders or rods? 
Although I suppose you could use a battery-powered angle grinder or similar to make it sound like something was out of balance or had run out of lubrication. Hmmmmm… maybe we’d better stop before we give the Iraqis any more ideas :dubious:
It’s a good thing you’re not being mean-spirited, because then I’d be forced to remind you that the Hamasniks and their ilk have basically the same weaponry as their Iraqi counterparts - AK-47s, RPGs and various explosive devices - as well as a great deal more experience and expertise. I’d also add that despite the current conflict, Israeli defense is still geared primarily towards defense against foreign invasion. As such, doctrine posits that the IDF have an advantage of at least one generation, technologically, over the surrounding Arab naions, as well as parity with any European military.
Do you really think we need Merkavas for Territories work, where upgraded M-60s would be just as good for the job? Those babies are for taking out Egyptian M-1s.
Anyway, here’s some more info on the Merk 4.
I dunno, didn’t the Israelis have to turn a bunch their M-3s into a new type of low intensity urban warfare vehicles because the others weren’t doing as well as they would have liked?
The best chance I can come up with for the Tiger is for the crew to abandon it. The Abrams crew finds it and recognizes it’s a vintage WWII tank. They get out of the Abrams to explore the Tiger, and the Tiger crew emerges from hiding and shoots them with small arms while they’re posing for a picture in front of the Tiger.
Sailboat
Here’s an article I wrote on the King Tiger II.
http://www.blackclawgames.com/bcg2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=26
IRL, yes there is: the other three tanks of the platoon. As well, the M-1 has engine indicators, and by checking engine tach, engine & tranny temp and oil pressures, the crew could easily rule out a mechanical. Next to the engine, the hydraulics make the most noise, and I seriously doubt (going from memory) that any handheld grinder (the “slaphead maneuver”) would be able to make enough noise to get the crew’s attention.
Actually, Sailboat probably has the best idea. After the cease-fire in '91, we found an abandoned T-72 in Iraq, and had a great deal of fun exploring it; had some Iraqi’s not heard the word, or just felt ornery, they could’ve taken out a platoon+ of dismounted tank crews, and captured 4-6 M1A1s perfectly intact.
That T-72 now sits at the 1st Cavalry museum at Ft. Hood. We drove it out of there after some minor repairs. Everything was intact: machineguns, ammo, sights, tools, manuals, main gun rounds, everything. It was if the crew had simply walked away (which is what they probably did).
Coming upon an intact, functioning Tiger? Fuhgeddaboutit. We’d be all over that thing so bad, the German crew could waltz right over us and have a shiny new M-1A1 or better to go beat up on the French with.
These threads are so cool.
I’d want Sailboat in my army.
My army officer brother told me that even against the more modern Russian tanks the Iraqis were using in the invasion, this was true. He said that the Americans switched from their depleted uranium rounds to more conventional explosive ones, because the uranium ones were just punching through both sides and back out again.