heres the situation. you take a abrams tank with george patton back to the world war 2 era. across the battlefield is rommel in a king tiger (if the nazis woulda had time to build it) who wouldve won. each side would have unlimited fuel and ammo.
2007-08-27 12:27:28 · 6 answers · asked by Alex 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
i dont mean just tank vs tank. i mean the tactics of rommel vs patton in the best of the best of tanks
2007-08-27 15:15:56 · update #1
No, heat seeking missile, infra red range finders, shooting on the fly, greater distance, greater calibre and thicker armour of the abrams was no match for any WWII era tank, even the King Tiger...
2007-08-27 13:04:51 · answer #1 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hey Alex honestly I really don't see the King Tiger ( my all time favorite) being any competition for the M1,M1A1,or M1A2 versions of the Abrams.
With Chobham Composite Armor of layered steel and ceremac plus depleted uranium mesh on the front of the turret and hull.
The 120mm smoothbore gun available on the M1A1 and M1A2,firing high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) shaped charge rounds such as the M830, plus one 50 cal. and two 7.62mm machine guns,turret mounted six barreled smoke grenade launchers that block vision and thermal imaging and can also be armed with chaff.
The Abrams is equipped with a ballistic fire-control computer that uses data from a variety of sources.
In World War II, it took a Sherman Tank an average of 17 rounds to destroy an enemy tank 700 meters away. The Abrams, by contrast, can destroy certain enemy tanks by firing, on the move, a single round from 2,000 meters away.
No contest.
Sorry Rommel, maybe you should have had a fleet of Leopard Tanks to challenge the Abrams.Now that would be a competition.
2007-08-27 22:26:42 · answer #2 · answered by The trooper 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If Patton had had an Abrams, there would have been no Cold War because he would've driven it all the way to Moscow.
In response to the addition to your question:
Tactically, they were very similar, aggressively seeking to punch through an enemy line using the tanks. Patton studied Rommel and his tactics, Rommel had written a couple of books on infantry and tank tactics and how to use them together for maximum effectiveness before the war. Thus Patton "knew" his enemy, a key aspect to beating him. In North Africa, they did fight some, and Patton was victorious. So, I'm still going with Patton.
2007-08-27 20:54:33 · answer #3 · answered by genius 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
if Rommel would have had more resources he would have won anyway.by the way,Rommel had no time for persecution of jews. He was only interested in his war.
2007-08-31 18:39:30 · answer #4 · answered by Maka 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No contest, Abrams. The technology is orders of magnitude better.
2007-08-27 19:55:46 · answer #5 · answered by Michael J 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The abrams, no question asked. You are comparing 1940's technology with 1980's technology.
2007-08-27 19:35:15 · answer #6 · answered by profile deleted 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋