Jump to content


Which WWII tank would survive the longest on a modern battlefield?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
123 replies to this topic

Gyrfalcon 642 #1 Posted 01 October 2015 - 07:45 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12614 battles
  • 343
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

Title says it all.  Which WW2 tank would have the best chance of surviving on the modern battlefield.

 

I'll start the fun, I'm going with the M24 Chaffee. 

 

I'm no expert, but I'm going on the assumption that NO WW2 tank had armor that could stand up to modern guns.  So I'm going with the tank that I'm guessing would be the hardest to hit.

 

Debate and lets have some fun.



CosmlcOstrich #2 Posted 01 October 2015 - 07:51 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22410 battles
  • 794
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014
I would have to go with the Leopard 1 due to the fact that the way of thinking when it was built was that armor was obsolete because of the guns that were available so instead they capitalized on the British design of the 105mm around a very fast and agile tank which is how the leopard series began I feel it would probably stand the best chance since it foregoes armor for a great gun and maneuverability. 

BleakPanther #3 Posted 01 October 2015 - 07:58 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 5840 battles
  • 432
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

View PostCosmlcOstrich, on 01 October 2015 - 11:51 AM, said:

I would have to go with the Leopard 1 due to the fact that the way of thinking when it was built was that armor was obsolete because of the guns that were available so instead they capitalized on the British design of the 105mm around a very fast and agile tank which is how the leopard series began I feel it would probably stand the best chance since it foregoes armor for a great gun and maneuverability. 

 

Isn't that tank a bit later than WW2?

 

Anyways, I'll have to give it to the Locust tank. 


AMX 50 120 - Churchill VII - VK 45.02 (P) Ausf. B - Tog II* - Ram II - T14 - T32 - T54E1 - AMX Chaffee - Pz.Sfl. V - Pz. V M10 - IS-2 - 59-16 - Chi-Nu Kai - T2 Light - MTLS-1G14 - Chaffee - T95E2 - Pz. S35 P.S, don't be afraid to add me on Xbox Live. Be sure to shoot me a message whenever you want to play! My Gamertag is BleakPanther.


CosmlcOstrich #4 Posted 01 October 2015 - 08:04 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22410 battles
  • 794
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostBleakPanther, on 01 October 2015 - 02:58 PM, said:

 

Isn't that tank a bit later than WW2?

 

Anyways, I'll have to give it to the Locust tank. 

 

True, I was thinking In-game tanks. I would instead like to say the Is-7 if a working model were to exist I think it could still stand it's ground against modern tanks and in some cases (Yes, I'm looking at you France) give quite the beating to the enemy. (The Is-7 was made in 1948 so it should fit the criteria)

Crazedtiger77 #5 Posted 01 October 2015 - 08:31 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11426 battles
  • 2,420
  • Member since:
    05-17-2014
The Locust, Tetrarch and any other small, lightly armoured vehicle would all fare reasonably well on the modern battlefield. That said, the Comet wouldn't do badly either as it would be able to deal with many modern light tanks. 


Metalrodent #6 Posted 01 October 2015 - 08:40 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 10186 battles
  • 14,433
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014
Centurion 1 might stand a slight chance, though of course as people have said it would really be who's hardest to hit (but even then with computer aiming)

<a data-cke-saved-href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif' href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/sCeAbYa.gif</a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...sCeAbYa.gif</a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...bYa.gif</a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s...gif</a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'>http://i.imgur.com/s.../a></a></a></a></a>

There’s a mask upon my face
I can’t live without
So you won’t recognize me
When I am in the crowd


Uranprojekt #7 Posted 01 October 2015 - 08:45 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 8338 battles
  • 3,437
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013

View PostCosmlcOstrich, on 01 October 2015 - 08:04 PM, said:

 

True, I was thinking In-game tanks. I would instead like to say the Is-7 if a working model were to exist I think it could still stand it's ground against modern tanks and in some cases (Yes, I'm looking at you France) give quite the beating to the enemy. (The Is-7 was made in 1948 so it should fit the criteria)

 

The current French MBT, the LeClerc, is the "youngest" out of all the modern western MBTs. It's comparable to the Challenger 2, which is only a few years older than the LeClerc, and could certainly give an IS-7 (of which only one exists and I do believe that it doesn't work) a run for its money. The LeClerc has the far more accurate gun and would be able to see the IS-7 long before it sees the LeClerc. The LeClerc will get the first shot off and that shot will punch through the armour of the IS-7 like it wasn't even there.

 

All of which brings me on to my answer to the OP; none of them. Modern MBTs are designed in such a way that they're supposed to be able to defeat anything the enemy, perceived or real, can currently field or may field in the future. What chance does a WWII-era tank, with it's comparatively primitive technology, stand against the most modern of AT weapons?


War does not determine who is right, only who is left - Bertrand Russell

 

I write things, things which can be found in Historical Discussions. Things like this article on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945 and this article on the Spanish Civil War.

 

To those of you who don't molest the English language, I salute you. For everyone else, there's this handy link; http://www.reverso.n...elling-grammar/


Gyrfalcon 642 #8 Posted 01 October 2015 - 08:47 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12614 battles
  • 343
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

View PostCosmlcOstrich, on 01 October 2015 - 08:04 PM, said:

 

True, I was thinking In-game tanks. I would instead like to say the Is-7 if a working model were to exist I think it could still stand it's ground against modern tanks and in some cases (Yes, I'm looking at you France) give quite the beating to the enemy. (The Is-7 was made in 1948 so it should fit the criteria)

 

Found this about the 105mm gun on the original M1 Abrams:

The advent of more advanced 105mm ammunition, specially DU penetrators like the improved M833 round, capable of penetrate 420mm of RHA inclined at 60° at 2,000 meters,

Think that would punch through the IS-7.


Sqn Ldr B #9 Posted 01 October 2015 - 08:54 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014
I think you'll find the stalwart of British tank design, the Matilda would survive well. The Matilda is literally and totally indestructible, and can withstand nuclear weapons up to 20 megatons. Failing that the Vickers Medium Mk. I would fair very well indeed.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


killer etzi0 #10 Posted 01 October 2015 - 08:59 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 59614 battles
  • 19,114
  • [47R]
  • Member since:
    06-20-2014
While some WWII tanks have incredibly thick armor...... I do not think any of them stand a chance vs modern anti tank weapons. Heck a A-10 pilot would have a field day with WWII armor.

"When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat."

 

Ronald Reagan
 

 


Matthew J35U5 #11 Posted 02 October 2015 - 11:51 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostCosmlcOstrich, on 01 October 2015 - 03:04 PM, said:

 

True, I was thinking In-game tanks. I would instead like to say the Is-7 if a working model were to exist I think it could still stand it's ground against modern tanks and in some cases (Yes, I'm looking at you France) give quite the beating to the enemy. (The Is-7 was made in 1948 so it should fit the criteria)

 

Doubtful. The IS-7 design was specified to be immune to the 128 mm Jagdtiger gun (I don't remember the designation), which is basically nothing compared to modern weapons. 

I think my answer would be liberally interpreting the word "WW2 tank" as heavily modified variants of the T-54. Some variants (of the T-55) were equipped with ATGM's and ERA. Probably wouldn't help against modern tanks, but presumably it would be more effective than hardened steel and 1940's quality kinetic penetrators. 

KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Uranprojekt #12 Posted 02 October 2015 - 12:32 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 8338 battles
  • 3,437
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 02 October 2015 - 11:51 AM, said:

 

Doubtful. The IS-7 design was specified to be immune to the 128 mm Jagdtiger gun (I don't remember the designation), which is basically nothing compared to modern weapons. 

I think my answer would be liberally interpreting the word "WW2 tank" as heavily modified variants of the T-54. Some variants (of the T-55) were equipped with ATGM's and ERA. Probably wouldn't help against modern tanks, but presumably it would be more effective than hardened steel and 1940's quality kinetic penetrators. 

 

The Jagdtiger used the 12.8 cm PaK 44 L/55.

 

I think we need some clarification from the OP on this. The T-54/55 was a WWII design but didn't enter mass production until after the war, 1946-47, so it's not technically a WWII tank, although the Red Army did receive T-54 prototypes during the war. I for one would like to know what exactly the OP considers a "WWII tank". Is it a tank that was designed and built/saw service during the war or is it merely a tank that was designed during the war but wasn't built/didn't see service until after the war, if it was built or entered into service at all?

 

I feel that the question is a little too open to interpretation for any sort of meaningful discussion to take place (even though any discussion on the matter all ends with the same answer; no, a WWII tank doesn't stand a chance on a modern battlefield).


War does not determine who is right, only who is left - Bertrand Russell

 

I write things, things which can be found in Historical Discussions. Things like this article on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945 and this article on the Spanish Civil War.

 

To those of you who don't molest the English language, I salute you. For everyone else, there's this handy link; http://www.reverso.n...elling-grammar/


Party Poison91 #13 Posted 02 October 2015 - 12:50 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16129 battles
  • 2,650
  • [X-OFF]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013
The TOG :trollface:
"That's a typical, shabby NAZI trick!"

Matthew J35U5 #14 Posted 02 October 2015 - 01:12 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostUranprojekt, on 02 October 2015 - 07:32 AM, said:

 

The Jagdtiger used the 12.8 cm PaK 44 L/55.

 

I think we need some clarification from the OP on this. The T-54/55 was a WWII design but didn't enter mass production until after the war, 1946-47, so it's not technically a WWII tank, although the Red Army did receive T-54 prototypes during the war. I for one would like to know what exactly the OP considers a "WWII tank". Is it a tank that was designed and built/saw service during the war or is it merely a tank that was designed during the war but wasn't built/didn't see service until after the war, if it was built or entered into service at all?

 

I feel that the question is a little too open to interpretation for any sort of meaningful discussion to take place (even though any discussion on the matter all ends with the same answer; no, a WWII tank doesn't stand a chance on a modern battlefield).

Which would be most effective at fighting modern APC's/IFV's?


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


XxDAFFYxxDUCKxX #15 Posted 02 October 2015 - 02:28 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 19468 battles
  • 12,270
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 02 October 2015 - 11:51 AM, said:

 

Doubtful. The IS-7 design was specified to be immune to the 128 mm Jagdtiger gun (I don't remember the designation), which is basically nothing compared to modern weapons. 

I think my answer would be liberally interpreting the word "WW2 tank" as heavily modified variants of the T-54. Some variants (of the T-55) were equipped with ATGM's and ERA. Probably wouldn't help against modern tanks, but presumably it would be more effective than hardened steel and 1940's quality kinetic penetrators. 

 

The IS-7 would have been years ahead of it's time in design if it was ever mass produced and used. Problem is, is that it isn't decades ahead of its time. (The T-54 may have just put it out of being produced anyways, so, who knows for certain.)

 

As for the OP, whoever is fastest, smallest, and who could carry out an ambush the best. Or, more likely, hide the best, because war tech from 70+ years fighting the cutting edge of technology isn't going to be very effective.


R.I.P. Lucky the cat, (2-24-14) you magnificent bastard.

Click here to learn about the math of WoT!


Matthew J35U5 #16 Posted 02 October 2015 - 03:00 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostXxDAFFYxxDUCKxX, on 02 October 2015 - 09:28 AM, said:

 

The IS-7 would have been years ahead of it's time in design if it was ever mass produced and used. Problem is, is that it isn't decades ahead of its time. (The T-54 may have just put it out of being produced anyways, so, who knows for certain.)

 

As for the OP, whoever is fastest, smallest, and who could carry out an ambush the best. Or, more likely, hide the best, because war tech from 70+ years fighting the cutting edge of technology isn't going to be very effective.

 

Not really. The IS-7 being years ahead of its time would mean that people would want something like an IS-7 years later, which they didn't really. It is perhaps, a well designed Tiger II/Maus, which manages to weigh as much as the Tiger II, while having comparable protection and firepower to the Maus. But super-heavy tanks weren't really a good idea*. The T-10 was a more modest design, and would be more feasible for it. 

*At least not until automotive technology had advanced enough that 70-ton main battle tanks were effective. 

KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


ChekmateKingTwo #17 Posted 02 October 2015 - 03:06 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Ambassador
  • 30610 battles
  • 740
  • [ONE]
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014
None of them would survive a significant time longer than the other.  A Hellfire missile would turn them all into scrap every time.  If you can pop a speeding car with one a WWII tank would be no problem at all regardless of how fast it is.



WOT - a game, not a life style!


 


Joco3000 #18 Posted 04 October 2015 - 05:12 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26876 battles
  • 28,485
  • [JOCO]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

This tiny little Polish bugger.

Just sit in a bush and they'll never find you.


You can PM with with questions, if you wish. I don't bite.

Compilation thread of my ideas


Sqn Ldr B #19 Posted 04 October 2015 - 05:14 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostJoco3000, on 04 October 2015 - 05:12 PM, said:

This tiny little Polish bugger.

Just sit in a bush and they'll never find you.

 

That's one of those funny little TKS things isn't it?

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Matthew J35U5 #20 Posted 05 October 2015 - 04:20 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013
Wait, I had an idea: A panther would survive the longest on a modern battlefield. Surely people have better things to do than to shoot up abandoned tanks on the side of the road that have broken down?

KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users