King Tiger in modern tank warfare?

Would you really need a whole battalion to dominate? I would take and be happy!

 

I'm sure these values are recalculated to represent solid steel plating while the actual armour is thinner yet stronger. I can't believe that the Abrams tank has a meter of armour on its turret, that's sick and it would double the tank's size...

 

right. that's the equivalent number to standard steel not actual thinkness. and that represents resistant to kinetic penetrators (sabots). the deplete uranium armour is some tough stuff.

oh, the resistant to heat shots are about 1.5x, more or less. By the way, the latest leopard a6, challenger, t-90s have about the same protection though their killing power is a little less.

note that the numbers represent only the front. sides and rear is significantly less.

 

A depleted uranium round from a modern tank gun would kill any WW2 tank with ease. And from far outside the range of the WW2 tank's main gun.

 

Chobnam armour is a composite armour of various different materials (including steel) - the secret (as with whisky...) is in the blend.

And how can the M1 have greater killing power than the Challenger when you use the same gun?

Personally, I kinda like the Challenger purely for patriotic reasons (!), but I have to admit that the M1 has a very useful turn of speed. This does probably give it a slight edge on 'which is best'.

Oh, and the Challenger II deserves a mention on the 'ugliest tank' strand due to that horrible slab-sided lump where the gun enters the turret!

 

I still stand by the German Leopard II A7, which is at least the most recent of tanks in use today. And we have the A6 in the Netherlands!

 

But it hasn't been evaluated in combat, Roel.

 

Just thought this might be of some use on this discussion.

Chobham's precise mechanism for defeating HEAT was something of a mystery until the 1980s. High speed photography showed that the ceramic material shatters as the HEAT round penetrates, blowing up to a huge volume which then expands back out the hole and pushes the metal jet of the HEAT with it. The effectiveness of the system was amply demonstrated in Desert Storm, where a handful of Challengers destroyed 300 Iraqi tanks without loss, one at over five miles range.

Newer versions of Chobham include open spaces, depleted uranium and other layers in addition to the original steel/ceramic layering. The uranium layers are included primarily to increase the total mass of metal while not being larger physically.
I'm not trying to get involved over the argument of which tank is better, but I think the article if quoted correctly meant the likes of
Chally or M1.

 

Hmm, it would seem that Chobham armour thus can take only one shot in one place; the ceramics shatter, so they would lose their protective value, am I right?

 

I believe the idea is that the battle will be over before an enemy can hit the same place twice.

 

You could better hope it is!

 

Actually the Challenger and the M1 uses different guns. M1 uses a modified German 256 smoothbore with a different breech and 44 calibers. The Challenger uses a rifled L30, an update of the outstanding L11 gun.

I think the Americans have a different philosophy from the Brits. Americans focus more on ammo, whereas the Brits focus more on the gun itself.

The 5k killed was not from a DU round, but a Hesh round which has a longer range. Something that the Americans can't fire with their smoothbore.

As for speed, they've about the same speed in open grounds. The maximum speed that you read about isn't as useful as those are quoted for maximum road speed.

As for looks, I like the Challenger more. Looks deadlier.

As for war, I like the Abrams more, we have about 10 times as many.

 

Yeah, I realised my 'same gun' mistake, but hoped nobody would pick up on it!

Only Britain & India still use rifled guns on their modern MBTs, due to a belief in the value of HESH rounds (High Explosive Squash Head).
If they can kill at 5km - heck, we can't be that wrong!

The big advantage that the smoothbore gun has (and one the Russians have utilised) is that you can fire missiles from them!

 

Another advantage is that gun barrel wear is greatly reduced. Big, high velocity rounds wear out a gun tube very quickly. Do any western armies fire missles through the gun? I thought the M551 was the only U.S. attmept at it, and not a very successful one.

 

I don't think Western tanks do.
One reason could be that missiles take up more room than your average round of ammo, so stocking missiles not only adds another type of ammo to your stocks, but also reduced the total number of rounds carried.

However, I did read somewhere that at least one russian tank can fire Surface to air Missiles from the gun barrel. Now, this was not an especially reliable source, so if anyone can back that up, or disprove it, I'd like to hear!

 

I don't have the scoop on the Abrams tank itself but I have to agree with Phelps on this one.

The increased capabilities in optics, armor, and gun systems over the past 60 years would seem to allow the Abrams to take out the Tiger 2 before the Tiger ever even detected the Abrams.

I don't know about the Tiger 2's infra red capability , but I think the Tigers would suffer the same fate as the Russian T-72's in the Middle East. We would take them out at night from a distance they could not spot us at.

:smok:

 

The Hesh round is going the same route as the Missile. Less effective vs the latest armour whether they're space amour, reactive, or choblam.

Last I heard, all of the Western tanks can take guns up to 140mm. The Germans has one available and successfully tested in a Leopard chassis. But so far American technology in ammo design has negated the need for a 140mm monster.

I doubt if the 140mm will be use as American combat experience is already having difficult since the concussion from the 120mm is killing friendly troops near the tank when it fires.

 

Doesn't the gas turbine give the M1 a huge infra-red ignature?

 

That is what I read in all the criticisms. Whether it's true. Dunno. I thought all tank engines give up huge infa red signatures. Does it really matter anymore after everyone went from infa-red to thermal? I don't recall current readings mentioning infa-red, so it may be a pass issue.

 

T55

The recent war is Iraq has given us some idea what would would happen if you matched a King Tiger against something modern. See:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 891059.stm

Put a King Tiger on a modern battlefield and first it will know of the enemy is when it is reduced to a donut on tracks!