Hypothetical versus question

P Mitch decent question. The SU-152 with that big freakin' gun didn't work at all for the Russians. Tank killing takes high velocity direct fire.

Putin's a lefty, so why wear the knife on the right?

I thought Chelsea Handler's spoof on that pic was excellent, but I can't post it here...

Reaper420

And of course chuck norris wins. No brainer there.

I doubt much would stop a 380mm round. As far as Hawaiian tropic versus Swedish bikini team........can I have both please? And of course chuck norris wins. No brainer there.

To get in on this late I've wondered in the past how much damage a Strumtiger would do to a modern tank. Even with Chobham arnour would it really stop 380mm rocker propelled round?

Phil

Ok, now this thread has certainly taken a strange turn.

OK, lets talk the ultimate hypothetical versus in East versus West...

vs

Hawaiian Tropic....

         

The show that you might be thinking of is Deadliest Warrior.

But the Tiger on the "cool" factor but otherwise the Abrams.

Haha I usually don't build armor so i rarely go to this forum but omg, this is the greatest thread ever.

jetmaker

vs.

?

This guy

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

….George Carlin

Maryanne.

Ginger or Maryanne?

Nah, I think Screech was pretty much a sissy (not that being a sissy is bad or anything, some guys are just kinda, oh, delicate, you know?). Urkel's definitely got more machismo. He had some spunk to him. IRL, the guy who played Screech is kind of a psycho nut case from what I gather

Okay, so that one was easy, but how about this...

Who wins...

Hawaiian Tropic Swimsuit Models?

Or...

Swedish Bikini Team?

Hint:

The answer is everybody

Steve wins. He took karate and ended up with Laura. Plus he was able to change his persona to stephan and eventually clone himself and have stephan be a seperate person. Screech never did anything that cool. Did screech take martial arts class? I don't remember it was so long ago.

vs.

?

Yea Statham, of course the wookie won LOL.

Did the wookie win yet? 

And I bet Jason Statham could beat Russell Crowe....... 

you rock Reaper420 ( in a good way) as for my actual answer to the posted question,  the Abrams hands down, as for aircraft i must go with the retired F-14   Tomcat, WOW what an awesome display of raw power  it's fast, can drop bombs , track a dozen different targets at once and kill 'em AND it carries a BIG gun. still think it is a good idea to let the wookie win however, i like my arms right where they are.

I am a younger person, well as young as a 31 year old with a wife and 7 year old son can be. I'm slowly teaching my son about modeling, but nothing too much yet as he is still in the "rather destroy it in battle in 10 seconds than pend 10 days building it" phase. As far as the glamour of war, I know there is nothing glamorous about it. I have two uncles that were in Vietnam and my grandfather who was in WWII and when they do open up, it is the most disturbing hell on earth experiences one could imagine. I do not envy anyone who has been in war (no disrespect) and I take my hat off in salute to those brave enough to risk their life in defense of our freedoms that we often take for granted. People often forget that without the sacrafice of those in WWII (and any other war for that matter) that the world we live in today could and would be a very different place. But as far as our hobby goes, I am proud to pass it along to the next generation and keep it alive. There are more things than just iPhone and video games.

Hey, David beat Goliath with a slingshot. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you get a clear view of the ball, sometimes God is on your side.

I'd put my bet on a modern pilot in a Spit. He/ she has all the skills, WAY more training and a lot of discipline. As always it also depends on command and control.

I agree 420, hand to hand would have been terrifying hence the development of better weapons with range, we as a species have been "dehumanizing" war for centuries,and I only hope one day we figure it out so we don't force our own extinction. No combat is good, there is no such thing as "friendly fire" ,and if you haven't been there true understanding cannot be achieved. I sense that you are a younger person, FANTASTIC, we need younger people to carry the hobby and HISTORY on but don't get to caught up in the glamour of war. No disrespect is intended here. P. S. I know folks personally who have been in "close quarter combat"  when and if they talk about it it' scarier than Hollywood could ever produce.

Bish you are 100% right. While the modern pilot would be able to get off the ground and engage, he probably wouldn't last long because the dogfighting skills taught today are not the same or have much emphasis on them (I assume, I really don't know). The old school pilot would most likely blow up the damn jet trying to take off, hell probably just trying to turn it on. As for what armornut said, that's the truth too. It's always about making our stuff better than theirs and vice versa. It comes with its inherent problems but it is the way of things. As for soldiers, I would hate to be in a firing line like in the Revolutionary War and Civil War, taking enemy volleys while standing there, often times separated by distances of no more than 20-30 feet, and I would hate to be a modern soldier fighting an enemy that is almost invisible and fights using coward tactics. But I suppose they both might not be as bad as fighting in The Great Crusade when battles were nothing more than giant melee battles and you could get stab or run through or get your head caved in from any side at any time. That too me was the scariest form of combat.

This is why they call it an arms race, side bar.... Let the wookie win...why? Because droids don't rip peoples arms off when they loose.  Each opponent tries to out due the other guy in order to win or have better protection, while this hypothetical challenge is interesting to contemplate IMHO it's like trying to compare apples and oranges since the technology did not exist in 1943, and stripping the modern of its technology would essentially render it useless the whole thing is just an exercise of futilaty.  Let the wookie win.

Remember,

"Let the Wookie win.........."

Reaper, I know what you mean about modern machines being more complicated. But in a sense, that brings its own problems. But things advance, not always for the better I grant you, but they advance. You could like wise say that the Infantry of WW2, able to engage the enemy from a distance, had it much easier than there counterparts at waterloo, standing in long lines while the enemy fired at them in mass volleys.

I was fortunate enough to spend 22 years in the British army, including 7 years on active service in Ulster, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Now I never had to sit through a mass artillery bombardment, tank attack, huge battles that cost thousands of lives and so on. So did the guys in WW2 have it harder than me. In some respects, yes. But they didn't have to deal with people walking up to them possibly wearing a suicide vest under there cloths. They didn't have to deal with an enemy who they couldn't kill or capture because they did not have the evidence.

I do have concerns with modern weapons because the basic skills are often no longer taught, so if all that high tech breaks down, people will be in trouble. Put a modern fighter pilot in an BoB Spitfire and he would probably last 30 secs. Put a WW2 Spit pilot in a Eurofighter, and he wouldn't even get off the ground. Like all things, weapons evolve.

I suppose this wasn't a good idea. I mean obviously there is no comparison, but sometimes I feel that the stuff of old was maybe just a little more...........actually less complicated. You know, without all the tech and the problems that ensue with it. Kinda like when cars were cars and not computers. It's like to me, and I mean no disrespect to anyone in the armed services, but awesome pilots were those in WWI and WWII. When dogfighting was dogfighting and there wasn't active radar in planes like today and heat seeking and guided missiles that could be locked on and fired from vast distances. You,had maybe 20-25 seconds of ammo, had to maneuver in for the kill and hope that the enemy pilot wasn't more skilled than you and lead the shot if necessary. The same applied to even jet fighters before missiles came into play on jets. I probably stirred up a nest with that one, but I'm just expressing my opinion. Unfortunately I never made it to any branch of military, too tall to be a fighter pilot 6'4" and eyesight too poor to be a soldier because of astigmatism. It wasn't for lack of trying, I just got rejected for everything I wanted to do. I was even rejected by the National Guard!

Gamera brings up most of the points I was going to.  Save one.

The real problem with this "versus" is that it pitches a late-war, near-last-ditch design against a considered, incrementally-tested, and combat product improved one.

Even the limitation to "AP only" is flawed.  By the time the Tiger II went to the field, the Germans had no tungsten for penetrators; they were down top solid steel shot.  Even the AP for the 105mm M1 gun used a 50mm penetrator rod in a discarding sabot.  Which would punch through even Tiger II frontal armor with ease.

There's a tiny bit of room for argument if we limit the rounds to HE only, no HESH ,HEAT or the like.  Which limited us to the 105 L7/M68 gun, as I do not believe there is an HE round other than the HEAT round in 120mm.

The Abrams uses spaced armor specifically designed to face anything the Soviets had, right down to T34/85, so the M1 is not likely to ever need reactive armor, except for rear-echelon unite in 3 or 4 decades  (if they emulate the M-48A3s),

If we up this to a Hunting Tiger, that' evens things a bit.  Other than suspension issues, track issues, drive train issues.

Now, for an interesting "versus" why not an Il-2 Sturmovik vs. an Abrams?

Fascinating thing about armor development that. Always beat whats out there vs. go off in some new direction.