The tank folks can correct me if I’m wrong but a modern tank can acquire multiple targets on the run (which is something like 50 mph in open terrain). Firing accurately on the run makes it a tough target to hit while conversely a weapon that can kill on the run.
Would the ols Grerman PAK 43, 88mm anti-tank gun be able to penitrate modern main battle tank armor? Wiki 8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37/41 - Wikipedia rates them as being able to penitrate 200mm armor at 1000m.
[QUOTE=Lee from Texas]
Modern tanks also have thermal sights
[/QUOTE]
Not that it would help much, but with regards night vision, some Panzers had it too.
[QUOTE=Bippy the Beardless]
Would the ols Grerman PAK 43, 88mm anti-tank gun be able to penitrate modern main battle tank armor? Wiki 8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37/41 - Wikipedia rates them as being able to penitrate 200mm armor at 1000m.
[/QUOTE]
If a T-72’s 125mm gun firing either shaped charge or sabot couldn’t do it, per Cardinal’s post, I don’t give the PAK 43 much chance.
Don’t foget modern tanks can shoot on the run with gyro stabilized guns. WWII tanks had to stop in order to shoot.
Sitting duck anyone?
Then again, all three of those shots were against the frontal armor, which as I understand it is the heaviest armor on a tank. A shot from a different angle might have been more effective.
[QUOTE=Chronos]
Then again, all three of those shots were against the frontal armor, which as I understand it is the heaviest armor on a tank. A shot from a different angle might have been more effective.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe it would have been more effective if all 3 T-72’s repeatedly rammed the M1A1 while the crew was out taking a piss. They didn’t. If a tank crew is not well versed enough to aim for the weak spots on a static tank I am surprised they even hit the damn thing.
[QUOTE=Pushkin]
Not that it would help much, but with regards night vision, some Panzers had it too.
[/QUOTE]
Not really the same thing. They had an infrared spotlight to illuminate the target. Thermal sights are passive; they don’t project anything towards their target.
People are maybeoverfocussing on the Abrams. The original question also asked about T72, T62 etc.
Some of these older tanks arent quite as big a jump over WW2 tanks, there was a real increase in armour capability with ‘chobham’ armour and the like in the 70’s.
It wouldnt be pretty but I coudl imagine tactics similar to how US tanks sometimes had to deal with heavy german tanks, ie 3 to 1 odds or better so that some of the US tanks could maneuver to the side where the armour was able to be penetrated, as they were almost invulnerable to frontal hits, just like in the above scenario regarding the M1 vs T72’s.
Otara
Otara
Frontal armour wise they still wouldnt have much chance, but side armour on some of these other tanks is a fair bit less. The other issue is training, which has a lot to do with why current tanks are so effective in more modern armies compared to other countries…
[QUOTE=Lee from Texas]
Not really the same thing. They had an infrared spotlight to illuminate the target. Thermal sights are passive; they don’t project anything towards their target.
[/QUOTE]
I take it then a Panzer would show up even more brightly on a thermal sight once it used its infrared spotlight?
[QUOTE=Cardinal]
…The unit (part of the 24th Infantry Division) had gone on, leaving this tank to wait for a recovery vehicle. Three T-72’s appeared and attacked. The first fired from under 1,000 meters, scoring a hit with a shaped-charge (high explosive) round on the M1A1’s frontal armor. The hit did no damage. The M1A1 fired a 120mm armor-piercing (DU) round that penetrated the T-72 turret, causing an explosion that blew the turret into the air. The second T-72 fired another shaped-charge round, hit the frontal armor, and did no damage. The T-72 turned to run, and took a 120mm round in the engine compartment (which) blew the engine into the air. The last T-72 fired a solid shot (sabot) round from 400 meters. This left a groove in the M1A1’s frontal armor and bounced off. The T-72 then backed up behind a sand berm and was completely concealed from view. The M1A1 depressed its gun and put a (DU) sabot round through the berm, into the T-72, causing an explosion.
[/QUOTE]
Coolest. Tank story. EVAH!
[QUOTE=Ficer67]
Scoring a direct hit to its tracks at close range, the American tank could be destroyed by a high-velocity gun. But even then the critical factor is could the old guns with the old ammo pierce the new chobam armor of the M-1 at any range?
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, track hits are mobility kills only. They don’t take the tank out of the action entirely, the same way a tiger (cat, not tank) with a wounded paw is still dangerous.
The old 88mm could conceivably pierce the armor, depending upon which aspect it hit. The armor’s not universally thick all-around, and it ain’t faerie magic armor; if you hit it hard enough, it’ll distort and break like any other metal.
But first, it’s gotta get close enough, undetected, to fire off a round blindside. Not impossible, of course; just very difficult as long as the modern crew’s competently trained (stipulated in the OP).
[QUOTE=Lee from Texas]
Hi. Former M1A1 tanker here. The WWII tanks would have no chance. The Iraqi tanks in Cardinal’s thread were all at very close ranges. The M1A1 can hit targets at 3,000 meters and beyond. The M1A2 and M1A2 SEP can reach out even farther. WWII tanks couldn’t come close to these ranges. Modern tanks also have thermal sights. It allows crews to see in the dark or see a hot spot that may have visual camouflage. So a modern tank could destroy a WWII tank before the other tankers ever knew they were there.
Gosh I miss tanks. 
[/QUOTE]
Same here. If the Army left me alone to tank (and didn’t leave me sitting in garrison a decade at a time), I’d still be in tanks. That much fun should be illegal.
[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir]
Coolest. Tank story. EVAH!
[/QUOTE]
And to answer the OP’s “ratio” question:
About 18-to-one. IIRC, tha Abrams A1 and later series have a ready ammunition supply (for the main gun) of 17 rounds.
[QUOTE=ExTank]
…Check this out…
[/QUOTE]
Well, that was cool. But I still prefer the story about smokin’ three Iraqi tanks which thought they had a broken-down Abrams in the bag.
Man, ExTank, it’s too bad you didn’t serve with my cousin, who was a tank commander in Iraq for a few years (fortunately home now). If you’d’ve done that with him, he’d probably have shown you how to disable the governor on the speed control, to get that sucker really going.
[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir]
Well, that was cool. But I still prefer the story about smokin’ three Iraqi tanks which thought they had a broken-down Abrams in the bag.
[/QUOTE]
Fine! Be that way. 
But mine was a “No-Bullshit-There-I-Was” story. 
[QUOTE=Chronos]
Man, ExTank, it’s too bad you didn’t serve with my cousin, who was a tank commander in Iraq for a few years (fortunately home now). If you’d’ve done that with him, he’d probably have shown you how to disable the governor on the speed control, to get that sucker really going.
[/QUOTE]
I was tight with our mechanics, and learned how to do that at FT. Hood before shipping out to Iraq (GW 1). The M-1 actually has two governors, one mechanical, one electronic.
The mechanical is easy to spot (once you know what to look for), and to bypass, but only gives you a small performance boost, around 5 mph gain in top speed.
The electronic governor..well, the mechanics were a lot more vague about it; it’s supposedly really tricky to get at, and can seriously muck up your engine if you goof, so they didn’t cough up the “secret.” I figure it’s in the engine ECU, maybe a jumper switch or something similar.
[QUOTE=ExTank]
The electronic governor..well, the mechanics were a lot more vague about it; it’s supposedly really tricky to get at, and can seriously muck up your engine if you goof, so they didn’t cough up the “secret.” I figure it’s in the engine ECU, maybe a jumper switch or something similar.
[/QUOTE]
Is this the one that, supposedly, would let you get the tank up to 90 (!) if it were removed, and you were on a flat, paved, surface? (And, according to the rest of the story I heard, would probably cause a catastrophic transmission failure at the first bump you hit at that speed?)
[QUOTE=Ranchoth]
Is this the one that, supposedly, would let you get the tank up to 90 (!) if it were removed, and you were on a flat, paved, surface? (And, according to the rest of the story I heard, would probably cause a catastrophic transmission failure at the first bump you hit at that speed?)
[/QUOTE]
Yep. I doubt it’d tear the tranny up that bad, though the track or final drive might not hold up so well.
[QUOTE=ExTank]
Sorry, track hits are mobility kills only. They don’t take the tank out of the action entirely, the same way a tiger (cat, not tank) with a wounded paw is still dangerous.
The old 88mm could conceivably pierce the armor, depending upon which aspect it hit. The armor’s not universally thick all-around, and it ain’t faerie magic armor; if you hit it hard enough, it’ll distort and break like any other metal.
But first, it’s gotta get close enough, undetected, to fire off a round blindside. Not impossible, of course; just very difficult as long as the modern crew’s competently trained (stipulated in the OP).
Same here. If the Army left me alone to tank (and didn’t leave me sitting in garrison a decade at a time), I’d still be in tanks. That much fun should be illegal.
Check this out.
[/QUOTE]
213 things Skippy can’t do:
84. Must not use military vehicles to “Squish” things.
184. When operating a military vehicle I may not attempt something “I saw in a cartoon”
Looks like you violated both rules. 
Tankers just pop up out of the woodwork when you least expect them to eh? My Dad retired from the bank and is working as a court orderly with some ex-police and armed forces men. It seems to be a career that suits older men with a history of either looking respectful or telling people to look respectful 
One of them related a story to Dad about taking an armoured vehicle for a bash down a motorway in England and being able to overtake old ladies in their hatchbacks, something I wouldn’t have minded seeing 