You do realize that the continuous supply of ammo, fuel, and spare parts would have so much more of an effect than literally any other thing you could do, right?
That would still be a huge advantage over any other machine of war in the history of warfare, even today.
You could say “how much difference would a single modern tank with unlimited ammo, fuel, and share parts make in Afghanistan in 2010” and the answer would be at least “very significant”
I would partly disagree because no matter how many spare parts you have, a blown up tank is a blown up tank. I thike the question is are there tanks in WW2 that can outmatch and destroy modern tanks.
From what I’ve read since posing this question tank rounds from back then would bounce off a modern tank. The new armor is highly effective.
A Abrams can track and fire while on the move and. WW2 tanks had to stop and fire. It’s speed and turret rotation is far faster from anything at that time.
One of the biggest issues it would face is bridges as no bridge from back then would most likely not support it’s 79 ton weight
The barrels in those tanks are rated for 1500 shots. That’s all you’ll get out of the tank. Sure, you can call the barrel a spare part and assume another one is at the ready, but at that point I’ll start asking why the Allies can’t just start assembling other Abrams from the infinite spare parts pile.
You do realize that the continuous supply of ammo, fuel, and spare parts would have so much more of an effect than literally any other thing you could do, right?
Just for the tank. Nothing else. Just wondering how it would perform and if it could change the outcome for any country
That would still be a huge advantage over any other machine of war in the history of warfare, even today.
You could say “how much difference would a single modern tank with unlimited ammo, fuel, and share parts make in Afghanistan in 2010” and the answer would be at least “very significant”
I would partly disagree because no matter how many spare parts you have, a blown up tank is a blown up tank. I thike the question is are there tanks in WW2 that can outmatch and destroy modern tanks.
From what I’ve read since posing this question tank rounds from back then would bounce off a modern tank. The new armor is highly effective.
A Abrams can track and fire while on the move and. WW2 tanks had to stop and fire. It’s speed and turret rotation is far faster from anything at that time.
One of the biggest issues it would face is bridges as no bridge from back then would most likely not support it’s 79 ton weight
So, like the spherical cow argument?
The barrels in those tanks are rated for 1500 shots. That’s all you’ll get out of the tank. Sure, you can call the barrel a spare part and assume another one is at the ready, but at that point I’ll start asking why the Allies can’t just start assembling other Abrams from the infinite spare parts pile.