Can any ww2 tank can still have a fighting chance in the modern era?

[Leavee]

So i've been thinking alot lately about ww2 (because i like it a bit to much) and most notably,the tanks of that era.Some were good some were just bad (like the ferdinand lol) and others are just downright insane to even think it was real.

But this got me thinking if any of the tanks such as the m4 sherman,IS-2,or even the tiger l or the super heavy tanks like the maus and m28 super heavy tank would fair today,the easy answer might be a big solid NO but ehhh.

[Leavee]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Emissary Kane's Will:

Being that there's still tech being used from WWI and WWII around the world, yes.

Over in the Middle East there's been SU-100s being used by insurgents and so on, while over in Ukraine there was this one guy who owns a T-34 that he used during the rebellion.

Against tanks it's not likely that these AFVs would stand up to them but in low intensity conflict areas where it's mostly infantry - light vehicle based, they still have a purpose as infantry support vehicles (or ISV in short) and etc.

SU-100s in that regard are for the most part being used as assault guns for the infantry and being that the Middle East is rife with old technology, they can still stand up to the Cold War tanks that are still being used over there.

Besides that, it also depends on how the vehicle in question is being used that also matters.

The T-54/55 in particular is still being used commonly and it was released in 1946. It is by far the world's most produced tank as well most used tank.

Just because it's old doesn't necessarily make it obsolete, the US for that matter still uses C-130s which were introduced in 1954 and are expected to serve well up into the 2030s or so. This being a grand example of a machine standing the test of time.

Well that was one hell of an answer.And a good one too,also out curiosity how would the SHT like the maus and m28 or any super heavy tank would fair?

[SgtEmissary [Kane's Will]]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Mister lilligant:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Emissary Kane's Will:

Being that there's still tech being used from WWI and WWII around the world, yes.

Over in the Middle East there's been SU-100s being used by insurgents and so on, while over in Ukraine there was this one guy who owns a T-34 that he used during the rebellion.

Against tanks it's not likely that these AFVs would stand up to them but in low intensity conflict areas where it's mostly infantry - light vehicle based, they still have a purpose as infantry support vehicles (or ISV in short) and etc.

SU-100s in that regard are for the most part being used as assault guns for the infantry and being that the Middle East is rife with old technology, they can still stand up to the Cold War tanks that are still being used over there.

Besides that, it also depends on how the vehicle in question is being used that also matters.

The T-54/55 in particular is still being used commonly and it was released in 1946. It is by far the world's most produced tank as well most used tank.

Just because it's old doesn't necessarily make it obsolete, the US for that matter still uses C-130s which were introduced in 1954 and are expected to serve well up into the 2030s or so. This being a grand example of a machine standing the test of time.

Well that was one hell of an answer.And a good one too,also out curiosity how would the SHT like the maus and m28 or any super heavy tank would fair?

Being such big targets not too well, they'd be easy food for close air support as well as food for much faster and lighter tanks (like they would have been in WWII).

There was a reason the super heavy concept wasn't looked into further and entirely abandoned. Though, they might fair better in a conflict with no other tanks and no air support, provided they had the proper infantry support.

Added ontop of that there'd be the issue of transporting the beasts and maneuvering them through terrain. The Maus was too heavy it couldn't cross most bridges and it'd be a logistical nightmare.

[Leavee]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Emissary Kane's Will:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Mister lilligant:

Well that was one hell of an answer.And a good one too,also out curiosity how would the SHT like the maus and m28 or any super heavy tank would fair?

Being such big targets not too well, they'd be easy food for close air support as well as food for much faster and lighter tanks (like they would have been in WWII).

There was a reason the super heavy concept wasn't looked into further and entirely abandoned. Though, they might fair better in a conflict with no other tanks and no air support, provided they had the proper infantry support.

I guess it goes to show bigger isn't always better (Something that germany didn't learn in ww2)

[SgtEmissary [Kane's Will]]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Mister lilligant:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Emissary Kane's Will:

Being such big targets not too well, they'd be easy food for close air support as well as food for much faster and lighter tanks (like they would have been in WWII).

There was a reason the super heavy concept wasn't looked into further and entirely abandoned. Though, they might fair better in a conflict with no other tanks and no air support, provided they had the proper infantry support.

I guess it goes to show bigger isn't always better (Something that germany didn't learn in ww2)

That was one thing that cost Germany the war yes, this emphasis on bigger tanks. In my opinion, they should have just stuck with the Panzer IVs and Panthers and upgrading them as they go, the Tiger I was a mechanical nightmare and not worth the cash that was sunk into it, it had a great gun sure but a poor platform to put it on.

The M26 Pershing (one of it's rivals) was a much better tank overall.

[Leavee]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Emissary Kane's Will:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Mister lilligant:

I guess it goes to show bigger isn't always better (Something that germany didn't learn in ww2)

That was one thing that cost Germany the war yes, this emphasis on bigger tanks. In my opinion, they should have just stuck with the Panzer IVs and Panthers and upgrading them as they go, the Tiger I was a mechanical nightmare and not worth the cash that was sunk into it, it had a great gun sure but a poor platform to put it on.

Meanwhile the red army was just putting in T-34's in eye watering amounts to the point the germans just could not keep up with them anymore.

[SgtEmissary [Kane's Will]]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Mister lilligant:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Emissary Kane's Will:

That was one thing that cost Germany the war yes, this emphasis on bigger tanks. In my opinion, they should have just stuck with the Panzer IVs and Panthers and upgrading them as they go, the Tiger I was a mechanical nightmare and not worth the cash that was sunk into it, it had a great gun sure but a poor platform to put it on.

Meanwhile the red army was just putting in T-34's in eye watering amounts to the point the germans just could not keep up with them anymore.

Yeah, the T-34-85, the apex of the T-34 family was roughly on-par with the Tiger I as well. Speedy, mobile, 85 mm gun as well as armor... all on a medium tank.

The T-34 had 45 mils of armor but it's effective thickness was roughly about 90 with it's sloppage... and the Tiger had 100 mm of armor, but it's thickness wasn't as great due to it's boxier design.

Making the T-34-85 a well rounded machine.

Ontop of this, the Churchill the British had, had muuuuch thicker armor than the Tiger I. So, there's that to take into consideration, although, the Churchill's gun was poor, it at the very least could have been used as a distraction while other tanks flank the Tiger.

[628]

We have some effective attacker planes called exact "tank killer", such as A-10 and Su-25. Modern tanks have thicker armor and higher mobility to be endurable against those planes to some extent, but I suspect ww2 ones have none of the above.

[SgtEmissary [Kane's Will]]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Wooden Board:

We have some effective attacker planes called exact "tank killer", such as A-10 and Su-25. Modern tanks have thicker armor and higher mobility to be endurable against those planes to some extent, but I suspect ww2 ones have none of the above.

In the end, with CAS, no matter the tank, they're all dead anyways. Ever since WWII, tanks have usually had poor roof armor, that even grenades or mines could pen.

I'm afraid, as much as I love tanks, their usage will be next to non-existent in the future as tech is produced and further advanced, becoming outclassed. as was the case with the battleship when the aircraft carrier and cruises missiles came into the fray.

Which again, is saddening as BBs (battleship abbreviation) were a sign of great power if a nation had them in their navy. They were the face of the navy for the longest time...

IFVs are blurring the line as it is as their guns become larger over time, essentially they could double as tanks ontop of their infantry support; becoming the future main line AFV I predict. For now at least, they are rendered a support role while tanks lead the charge.

[Leavee]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Emissary Kane's Will:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Wooden Board:

We have some effective attacker planes called exact "tank killer", such as A-10 and Su-25. Modern tanks have thicker armor and higher mobility to be endurable against those planes to some extent, but I suspect ww2 ones have none of the above.

In the end, with CAS, no matter the tank, they're all dead anyways. Ever since WWII, tanks have usually had poor roof armor, that even grenades or mines could pen.

I'm afraid, as much as I love tanks, their usage will be next to non-existent in the future as tech is produced and further advanced, becoming outclassed.

IFVs are blurring the line as it is as their guns become larger over time, essentially they could double as tanks ontop of their infantry support; becoming the future main line AFV I predict. For now at least, they are rendered a support role while tanks lead the charge.

Unless there's that one country who is really in need (or in other words desperate) when its in a state of war and chaos,then they might use what they can find and fight with it,even if its an old ww2 tank or old weapons and equipment as a whole in a resistance

[SgtEmissary [Kane's Will]]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Mister lilligant:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Emissary Kane's Will:

In the end, with CAS, no matter the tank, they're all dead anyways. Ever since WWII, tanks have usually had poor roof armor, that even grenades or mines could pen.

I'm afraid, as much as I love tanks, their usage will be next to non-existent in the future as tech is produced and further advanced, becoming outclassed.

IFVs are blurring the line as it is as their guns become larger over time, essentially they could double as tanks ontop of their infantry support; becoming the future main line AFV I predict. For now at least, they are rendered a support role while tanks lead the charge.

Unless there's that one country who is really in need (or in other words desperate) when its in a state of war and chaos,then they might use what they can find and fight with it,even if its an old ww2 tank

That'd be Third World countries and so on. There will always be a niche market there yes. Elsewhere, they would be a rarity.

[Leavee]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Emissary Kane's Will:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Mister lilligant:

Unless there's that one country who is really in need (or in other words desperate) when its in a state of war and chaos,then they might use what they can find and fight with it,even if its an old ww2 tank

That'd be Third World countries and so on. There will always be a niche market there yes. Elsewhere, they would be a rarity.

Yeah,like my country who had a terrorist war against the maute group..The philippine army only had m14 carbines,m16s and most of the vehicles used there are probably going to get taken out with a simple RPG rocket launcher.

1st world countries have the luxury of playing the point and click game.

[SgtEmissary [Kane's Will]]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Mister lilligant:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Emissary Kane's Will:

That'd be Third World countries and so on. There will always be a niche market there yes. Elsewhere, they would be a rarity.

Yeah,like my country who had a terrorist war against the maute group..The philippine army only had m14 carbines,m16s and most of the vehicles used there are probably going to get taken out with a simple RPG rocket launcher.

1st world countries have the luxury of playing the point and click game.

Yes, ontop of excellent training in their troops, it's very much easy mode. Stands to reason the bigger countries bully the smaller countries, they're playing it smart by taking land they know for sure they can take without much of a hiccup.

[Leavee]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Emissary Kane's Will:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Mister lilligant:

Yeah,like my country who had a terrorist war against the maute group..The philippine army only had m14 carbines,m16s and most of the vehicles used there are probably going to get taken out with a simple RPG rocket launcher.

1st world countries have the luxury of playing the point and click game.

Yes, ontop of excellent training in their troops, it's very much easy mode.

So in short

3rd world: World war 2 tactics and marksmanship and heavy casualties on both sides and will take long for it to be finished

1st world: Drop a ton of missles or a nuke (if your crazy enough to do so) and your pretty much the winning side.

[SgtEmissary [Kane's Will]]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Mister lilligant:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Emissary Kane's Will:

Yes, ontop of excellent training in their troops, it's very much easy mode.

So in short

3rd world: World war 2 tactics and marksmanship and heavy casualties on both sides and will take long for it to be finished

1st world: Drop a ton of missles or a nuke and your pretty much the winning side.

... Somewhat close. 3rd World uses gorilla tactics in most cases.

Nukes? Not likely, every country knows if it were to happen it'd result in MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) as they all launch their's in retaliation. It's not beneficial to them to have a destroyed world. ... Unless on the rare chance we get a psycho in power then yeah, but otherwise you don't have much to worry about when it comes to that.

For us, we'll mostly use superior air-power, cruise missiles in support of boys on the ground... or ships on the water.

[Leavee]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Emissary Kane's Will:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Mister lilligant:

So in short

3rd world: World war 2 tactics and marksmanship and heavy casualties on both sides and will take long for it to be finished

1st world: Drop a ton of missles or a nuke and your pretty much the winning side.

... Somewhat close. 3rd World uses gorilla tactics in most cases.

Nukes? Not likely, every country knows if it were to happen it'd result in MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) as we they all launch their's in retaliation. It's not beneficial to them to have a destroyed world. ... Unless on the rare chance we get a psycho in power then yeah, but otherwise you don't have much to worry about when it comes to that.

For us, we'll mostly use superior air-power, cruise missiles in support of boys on the ground... or ships on the water.

You sure know alot about history and some military equipment i'll give ya that
(also yeah i think its best to use a nuke when a man like another hirohito or anyone really would conquer parts of the world)