The M 48 Patton has a superior cannon to the KwK 43, the T54. 90 mm at 3,750 fps vs. 88 mm at 3,700 fps.

Also a diesel after the A2C.

I'm good there.

First off, there is no such thing as an M2A2 Abrams.  It is an M1A2 Abrams, which would destroy the Tiger due to the size of its rounds, 120mm, and thicker armor.  The 88mm Tiger rounds would bounce off the Abrams with no effect.

I guess my point is that I would be satisfied to fight with the Patton. Anything after that is just mo' betta.

HeavyArty you can relax with your snob a$$ attitude. It's a Fricking typo. No s**t there is no M2A2. If there is one person I can think of on this forum that SHOULD NOT be here, it's you. You always have to go around correcting everyone and making snide remarks about people's work. Do yourself a favor and STFU once in a while. Nobody needs an elitist member ruining their thread.

No disrespect or I'll will towards you though, but I've seen a few threads where you jump on people for mistakes, or calling people's work mediocre ( not necessarily their work, but their kits. Once or twice their work though.) I take it your an older gentleman and have been in the hobby for years. I'm 31 and have only been doing modeling for 10 years, Armor for only a year. When you jump on people, especially younger people, you kind of make them not really be interested in the hobby because they feel like they aren't producing quality work or don't know anything. The last thing we need is for these young punks these days with their I pods and I phones and xbox to completely write off our hobby. We are a slowly dying breed gentlemen, and it's a sad and unfortunate reality.

Really.  You need to take a chill pill man.  You are wound way too tight.

Typo or confusion, who knew, since there is an M2A2.  It is the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, not a version of the Abrams tank.

You might want to go back and read all the other threads where I help people out, answer questions, and tell people how good their models look.  What you seem to have issues with is called constructive criticism.  Most people find it helpful.  Without pointing out issues with builds, how do you expect people to improve?  Most people expect feedback (good and bad) on their builds when they place them on a modeling site.  If all you are looking for is pats on the back and 'atta boys, you will never get better. 

By the way, I'm not that much older than you.  Don't just make assumptions and dictate who you think should be on the site.  Who's being elitist now?

Also, there is an edit button to fix typos.  It is the little pencil below your text box on the left side, opposite the reply button.

Reaper, nothing HeavyArty said toward you was offensive or snide. He merely corrected your error, typo or not. "Correction": is what this forum is all about--how else do you learn?

I might also point out that he responded in a gentlemanly manner to your outburst. Seriously, forget about it and move on.

As far as the Tiger vs Abrams, the Tiger wins on "cool" factor. :)

Cool gets you dead, right? Someone I think it was Noel Coward said "I'd rather be a handsome corpse than an ugly person" or some such.

There was a similar discussion in Ships. People often think about those German aircraft carriers. A kit comes out from time to time. What coulda, mighta?

Well they took 7 years to build one and start a second. By the time they'd started the second, in late 1942; the Japanese and the US had each had four big ones sunk in battle, and the British six.

I think this is where WOT and its like gets us. F-15 versus Stuka? But the Eagle doesn't get it's avionics...

And Reaper, calm the heck down. Ask a question, get an answer. Move on.

Why do people say no disrespect meant,why is it followed by a disrespectful comment.It doesn't make attacks okay when you say that.i have sways found Gino's comments helpful and not attacks.

GMorrison

 

I think this is where WOT and its like gets us. F-15 versus Stuka? But the Eagle doesn't get it's avionics...

 

 

Now someone is just being darn silly. With or without avionics, the Stuka wins every time.

Now, how about something more realistic.

                                                                    VS 

Discuss. 

Bish, 

If the chariot driver is Charlton Heston, then the AT-AT has no chance. Just the way of things...

I apologize to all, HeavyArty to you especially. My outburst was unwarranted and childish. It's hard to discern emotion or intent from typed text. I discerned wrong. As far as WOT goes, I honestly didn't deduce this question from that game. I don't even play it. I hate how people play that game and think all of a sudden they are tank experts. I got the idea from the History Channel program that used to pit warriors of different ages against each other and compare different stats and try to decide who has the advantage. I forget the name of it though. But this is serious. Why not compare armor of old to armor of new. Besides technology, is the base vehicle really that much different? There are many examples of weaponry and the likes that have withstood the stand of time because they were so effective, I'm sure you guys can think of some. Anyway I wish I could close or delete this post because it has caused more trouble than its worth.

By the way that chariot would stomp all over that AT-AT

hogfanfs

Bish, 

If the chariot driver is Charlton Heston, then the AT-AT has no chance. Just the way of things...

Even if the AT-AT is being driven by a Wookie?

Bish, you always have to throw in a monkey wrench! 

OK, I'll give you the Wookie, but, I'll raise you a Russell Crowe!

hogfanfs

Bish, you always have to throw in a monkey wrench! 

OK, I'll give you the Wookie, but, I'll raise you a Russell Crowe!

And someone always has to take it to far, that's not meant to be a Roman chariot you know.

But ok, you get Crowe. But the Wookie is trained in the Dark Side.

 

Edit: And before you say it, no, Crowe does not get a Longbow.

Bish

 

Edit: And before you say it, no, Crowe does not get a Longbow.

I'm beginning to think you have been trained in the ways of the Jedi! 

I can do nothing but admit defeat... 

Its either that or I just so happened to have put Robin Hood on the blue ray player when I read you last post.

To get back to your question I dunno Reaper- I mean the Abrams has Chobham armour and a turbine engine that's based on '70s technology, you couldn't build the tank at all with '40s tech. It's like the F-15 vs. Stuka brought up in jest- you can't build a F-15 with '40s tech in any situation.

Though I'm not too sure the Tiger II would have a chance against those tanks designed to defeat the Tiger I - aka the M26, Comet, and IS-II. The latter tanks designed to kill the Tiger II- the IS-III, Centurion, and T29-T34 series would eat the thing for lunch.

And the Soviets kept up production of their Tiger killer, the IS-III leading the US and UK to develop the M-103 and Conqueror, which I'd think would crush anything including a E-75 or E-100.

Guess I'm not sold on how great German hardware was. The Tiger II had a superb gun and piles of armour but the engine and transmission were garbage. Personally I'm certainly no expert but I think German panzer design peaked with the Panzer IV and went downhill from that point to expensive garage queens that looked great on paper but never worked very well in the field.  

Don't even get me started on the Maus, only someone on serious drugs could consider this thing as anything less than a sick joke....

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

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?

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!

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.

Remember,

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.