RE: WW2 Tanks.... A question....
December 3, 2018 at 5:51 pm
(This post was last modified: December 3, 2018 at 5:53 pm by Peebothuhlu.)
At work.
I think about the same? Pretty sure an Abrams track length and width are 'More' then on a comparable Tiger or Panther.
A modern Abrams also has a MUCH better horse-power to weight ratio.
Though, even with its weaker engine, a Panther or Tiger were no slouch at moving their mass through most terrain.
There's an excellent Youtube video made by the... Swedes(?) after the war putting a Sherman, a Churchill, a Panther and the Swedish (?) tank of the day through different terrain trials.
Can't remember its name and not in position to offer link sadly.
Yes, Armored Fighting Vehicles (And Tanks) still have a place on modern battle feilds. ( In my uneducated opinion. Reasons possibly to follow if aske/imd permitting)
(December 3, 2018 at 5:36 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:(December 3, 2018 at 5:34 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: For example, a modern Abrams is actually a little bit bigger across its dimensions (Except maye height) and heavier than a WW II Tiger II.
How does the ground pressure compare?
I think about the same? Pretty sure an Abrams track length and width are 'More' then on a comparable Tiger or Panther.
A modern Abrams also has a MUCH better horse-power to weight ratio.
Though, even with its weaker engine, a Panther or Tiger were no slouch at moving their mass through most terrain.
There's an excellent Youtube video made by the... Swedes(?) after the war putting a Sherman, a Churchill, a Panther and the Swedish (?) tank of the day through different terrain trials.
Can't remember its name and not in position to offer link sadly.
Yes, Armored Fighting Vehicles (And Tanks) still have a place on modern battle feilds. ( In my uneducated opinion. Reasons possibly to follow if aske/imd permitting)
