Asklemmy

55349 readers

70 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS

If you sent a lone modern tank like a Abrams, Leopard, or black panther back to WW2 with a continuous supply of spare parts, ammo, fuel etc. Would it make a difference? (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 weeks ago by KC_Royalz@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I know a lone modern fighter jet would make a huge difference but have always wondered about a tank

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 35 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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?

[–] KC_Royalz@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Just for the tank. Nothing else. Just wondering how it would perform and if it could change the outcome for any country

[–] pwnicholson@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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"

[–] safesyrup@feddit.org 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] KC_Royalz@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

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

[–] actionjbone@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

So, like the spherical cow argument?

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

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.