M1 Abrams vs. Panzer VI Tiger

[Pygmy_Hippo_2]

One of the best tanks ever made


A battle between the modern American powerhouse and the German juggernaut of WW2. Notes:The M1 Abrams has the 105mm gun, Cobham Armor, and doesn't get the optional machine gun. Speed equalized. Win via disarming the other tank or killing the opposing crew. Fight takes place in a destroyed city with both tanks at opposite ends to take advantage of cover or other tactical options.

M1 Abrams:3

Panzer VI Tiger:0

 

[Fllflourine]

The american tank stomps

 

[Pygmy_Hippo_2]

Reasons?

 

[Fllflourine]

1. Far Superior main gun, that can load more advanced rounds that can penetrate modern armor at longer distances than a WW2 era gun.

2. Faster. Much faster, and with a superior capacity of firing on the move

3. Chobham armor.

4. Better electronics and crew is better equippef in general due to having not WW2 level equipment

Also its not like the machine guns will do anything to a tank.

 

[Numbersguy]

The american tank stomps.

The german tank was a powerhouse for its time, but on the current times it is quite weak (The M1 was made to fight other tanks as big as itself, the Panzer was made to destroy normal tansk that at the time were unprepared, the M1 Abrams has better tech and can see the Panzer betetr via scanners, the Panzer doesn't have those).

 

[Dinobot1996]

The M1 Abrams FRA.

 

[Pygmy_Hippo_2]

Decided to equalize speed.

 

[Pygmy_Hippo_2]

Bump.

 

[XING06]

M1 Abrams, not even close; this is a stomp thread.

The Panzer has maybe 170 mm of armor in front, plain steel. The M1 Abrams has a steel equivalent of 900mm up front and 50-200 at it's weakest points (eg. back and side of engine compartment) against kinetic energy weapons (Standard AP shells), higher against chemcial energy weapons (HEAT rounds).

In other words, it's a battle between a tank with penetration resistance at 8C and one at 8B with matching AP (please see Alakabamm's blog to see how this was calculated). Also Abrams has better targeting system, longer range, ability to shoot while moving, sloped armor, a lower profile (which makes it harder to hit), and reactive armor which protects its sides. It also has fire suppression systems and blow-out panels for the ammo, which means that even if the ammo cooked of on the inside from a lucky hit the tank would survive.

Literally the only way the Abrams could lose was if they turned off all their sensors, stopped moving, let the Panzer get behind them and fire an AP shell at the back of their engine compartment. Any other angle and the Panzer wouldn't be able to scratch the Abrams (this is assuming it is equipped with TUSK otherwise the Panzer could probably damage the Abrams towards the back of its side)

 

[Pygmy_Hippo_2]

It's not a TUSK Abrams, it's the Cobham Armor version.

 

[XING06]

Still the armor and AP difference is too much. Even without TUSK the Abrams is invulnerable from the front and sides (700-200) of the crew compartment. The only thing they could target is the engine compartment (50-150) and with the Abrams sensors and longer range, it's highly unlikely that the Panzer would be able to target there. A single shell from the Abrams from any side would kill the Panzer.

This is a stomp. Just look up any military conflict where modern tanks fought against older tanks. It would take at least 3-5 Panzers moving in unison to corner and outmaneuveur an Abrams in a city into a position where one of them can hit it from the back and even then it's probably only a mobility kill. It's like a Sherman Tank vs a Tiger II, not going to work unless you have overwhelming numbers, but even less likely cuz the Abrams has longer range and faster firing speed.

 

[Fllflourine]

Would still be a stomp; that is the technological equivalent of putting Fw 190s against MiG-29s

 

[Pygmy_Hippo_2]

Can someone close this?