_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: What If?
For those who like to build hypothetical or alternate history versions of armor/AFVs.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Modern AFV vs WW2 AFV
lkoky
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: December 06, 2004
KitMaker: 62 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 08:06 PM UTC
Hi there,

Just curious a modern AFv said M2 bradley in a duet with Pz III, who will survive the shootout? Let's put aside all the modern gadget like laser sighting, electronic etc. just on armour and firepower comparison.

I am doing Pz III at the moment just amaze at its tiny size when compared to modern AFV; it is only a slight bugger than a Humvee.

Just wonder how far modern armour and firepower have advanced since the 40s

thanks.
bison126
Visit this Community
Correze, France
Joined: June 10, 2004
KitMaker: 5,329 posts
Armorama: 5,204 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 08:41 PM UTC
My guess is the chaingun would kill the Pz III quite easily thanks to the AP rounds but the reverse would be right too.
The AFV armor (standard one not ERA) would better sustain fire from HMG to automatic cannon. A direct hit from a tank would definitely damage it even if not fully destroyed.

olivier
greatbrit
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: May 14, 2003
KitMaker: 2,127 posts
Armorama: 1,217 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 09:00 PM UTC
Similar to the Tiger V Sherman debates,

A bradley is an APC/MICV, its main gun is designed as an anti-personel/light vehicle weapon, not for attacking tanks. Its TOW missiles would obliterate a Panzer 3.

The panzer 3 was a tank, and if you compare it with a modern tank, abrams for example, there is no contest.

Whilst i have no doubt that some WW2 AFVs would still be fairly potent on their own, but bearing in mind armoured cars and upwards are better armed, and anything bigger than a light tank better armoued, i dont think they would last long on the modern battlefield.

This is just talking in terms of AFVs, if we include infantry then WW2 kit would be doomed.

Regards

Joe
nzgunnie
Visit this Community
Auckland, New Zealand
Joined: October 15, 2004
KitMaker: 371 posts
Armorama: 174 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 09:49 PM UTC
You can hardly ignore modern 'gadgets' , since they are an integral part of the weapon and allow the tank to achieve a high probability of a first round hit.

Considering that the fast moving Bradley could engage the pz III while moving using it's gyro stabilised laser ranged all singing all dancing chain gun firing DU rounds, whilst the pz III would have to stop to accurately engage the Bradley it's not really much of a comparison.

If it's main guns at 30 paces, turn and shoot, than I'd still back the Bradley. That 25mm chain gun was taking out T55s in Iraq.

But it's still like asking who's better, Superman or Batman....
greatbrit
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: May 14, 2003
KitMaker: 2,127 posts
Armorama: 1,217 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 10:12 PM UTC
Phil,

I forgot about that!

There well also several instances were Rarden armed British AFVs were taking out T-55s and T-62s in Iraq.

A scimitar even took out a T72 in GW1, although it engaged from the rear

Regards

Joe
nzgunnie
Visit this Community
Auckland, New Zealand
Joined: October 15, 2004
KitMaker: 371 posts
Armorama: 174 posts
Posted: Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 10:46 PM UTC

Quoted Text

if we include infantry then WW2 kit would be doomed.




Maybe...it depends on the terrain. If it was open ground with medium to long engagements during day time, WW2 infantry would not necessarily be at a disadvantage, especially if we are talking a squad of late WW2 US infantry vs Modern US infantry (quite why the Americans would be fighting their time travelling countrymen is uncertain, but bear with me).

A WW2 squad was armed mostly with M1 Garands, with a BAR as the squad automatic weapon. The NCO or Officer might have had a M1 Carbine or a Thompson, but most of the guys would have had a semi auto .30-06 rifle. The BAR was also 30-06 and capable of full auto fire.

The modern squad is armed with 5.56x45 M4 carbines, with a 5.56x45 SAW and maybe if they are real lucky a 7.62x51 M240 ('Gimpy' to those of us outside the US).

Compare the effective range of those weapons - the WW2 guys could engage their modern counterparts at an effective range nearly twice that of the modern M4, the only weapon capable of reaching out to the WW2 guys would be the M240 if they had one. Even if the modern guys had 203s, if they were engaged in open ground at 500m, it wouldn't help much.

Even a well trained section of British infantry armed with No4MK1s and a Bren gun would be able to out range a modern infantry squad. And at long range the bolt action rifle would be no disadvantage at all. If the British WW2 guys had a Vickers with them, they could even provide indirect fire (the only machine gun capable of this), and hit the modern guys behind cover!

Now I wouldn't back the WW2 guys with bolt action rifles in a close quarter battle, but those 30-06 or .303 rounds would still be really handy in a built up area - you couldn't hide behind your concrete wall for long before it started coming apart around you.
greatbrit
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: May 14, 2003
KitMaker: 2,127 posts
Armorama: 1,217 posts
Posted: Friday, November 11, 2005 - 12:25 AM UTC
Actually Phil i was referring to modern infantry anti tank weapons, but you have a fair point.

However just a couple of points, you are spot on about modern US infantry, but British infantry is a different matter.

The L85 rifle is accurate and effective out to approx 600 metres (twice what is usually quoted) i know this as i have used it at this range on various competition shoots.

Whilst the No4 is far more accurate, it is difficult to see the target, let alone hit it at ranges over this

The LSW is accurate to about 800 metres in the hands of a good shot.

The GPMG in the SF role is effective and accurate out to 3000 metres when using map predicted fire, and out to 1800m in the light role. its also a lot easier to move around than a vickers!

I think in a long range engagement the British units would be about equal

Regards

Joe
DaveCox
Visit this Community
England - South East, United Kingdom
Joined: January 11, 2003
KitMaker: 4,307 posts
Armorama: 2,130 posts
Posted: Friday, November 11, 2005 - 03:04 AM UTC
I know that we've moved away from the original question of Armour vs Armour, but I've fired both old and new UK infantry weapons; and I'd back the Bren & No4 against the newer weapons at any distance. I've fired the No4 at a mile range over open sights (at Bisley), and the LSW (SA80) up to 300m (at Pirbright) - no question - the No4 is better at any range. The only variant is that it takes a lot less training for someone to shoot accurately with the modern weapons.
Herchealer
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Joined: July 31, 2003
KitMaker: 1,523 posts
Armorama: 710 posts
Posted: Friday, November 11, 2005 - 03:26 AM UTC
Once again, this would have to be a case by case scenerio. It would all be the person behind it. You look at some of the best rifles still are the simple bolt action rifles, What good would an M-4 have if you coulndt even get close enough to them to see the muzzle blast. It's all about what runs the weapon or who is behind the trigger in my honest opinion. But thats just me, I mean how did the Afganis beat the russians? The russians had far more superior weaponry, yet they were driven back.


Herky
nzgunnie
Visit this Community
Auckland, New Zealand
Joined: October 15, 2004
KitMaker: 371 posts
Armorama: 174 posts
Posted: Friday, November 11, 2005 - 10:21 AM UTC
Taken that things like the shooting ability of each of our imaginary sides is about equal, then it comes down to ballistics, and 5.56 is nowhere as effective as .303 or 30-06 once you get past 300m. Even 7.62 does not have the range of 30-06. Not only is it less effective because it is affected by wind so much more, it loses energy much faster. You might be able to hit something at 600m on a range with a 5.56 rifle, but can you kill it with one shot? I'd be backing the guy with the 30 cal weapon any day. (that's good shooting though, I've never had the opportunity to fire on a 600m range, but I'd be struggling to hit a barn door with my Steyr!)

Your quite right about the Gimpy's ranges, but it's not provided in it's SF role at section level, and may not even be available at section level in it's light role. Neither of course was the Vickers, I only threw that in because of it's ability to provide plunging indirect fire.

As for the LSW, that's a good comparison weapon to the Bren (both magazine fed for example) but from what I've seen, infantry units in the British army seem to be moving towards the Para model of the Minimi, which is a pretty loose weapon with a big cone of fire. You'd be spraying and praying out past 300m. I've put quite a few thousand rounds through the full size version over the years, and the short barrel model can't be any more accurate.

I've never fired the LSW, but have used the Bren on a short range a few times, and given the choice between a 5.56 LMG with a 30 round mag, and a .303 LMG with a 30 round mag I know which one I'd be choosing (providing I didn't have to carry it far...). With a 5.56 machine gun (Minimi in this case) you actually have to go and examine your figure 11 to count the hits, with the .303 or 7.62 it becomes a bit more obvious as your target disintegrates.

But back to the original question - remember that modern armour is generally more sophisticated that the rolled steel of WW2. Metallurgy has come along way and most modern tanks have laminated type armour. The advances are also to the guns and projectiles. These days rounds have DU penetrators rather than hardened steel, and the chemical rounds which were very new in WW2 are more sophisticated.

Something like an AT round from an '88 could no doubt still take out light armour with great effect, it would be interesting to find out how effective the famous '88 would be against a modern MBT, but my money is still on the MBT. After all, if an '88 was still effective as a main gun, then all tanks would still have '88s, and not 120mm.


pflmng
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: November 20, 2005
KitMaker: 1 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 05:07 PM UTC
As to the original question in this post, M2 Bradley vs PzKwIII. I am assuming the latter to be at least the J version of the Pz III which was the most common by far.
The PzIII had armor ranging from 71mm thick on the hull front, to 54mm on the turret front. The M2 Bradley, assuming the original issue vehicle before armor upgrades, averages 35mm on the turret front and 30mm on the hull.
The bushmaster cannon on the M2, using the standard shell, can penetrate approx 25mm of armor plate at short ranges, and 15mm at approx 1500mtrs. This is not using AP or DU shot, as I am unable to locate penetration info on these rounds. The 50mm/L60 cannon on the PzIII can penetrate from 158mm armor plate at close range, down to 40mm at approx 2000mtrs ( if it can hit it).
Can the Bradley kill the PzIII? I would say yes, given the rate of fire and gunsights of the Bradley, you could literally pound the PzIII until the armor plate gave out. On the other hand, if the PzIII could attain a hit on the speedy Bradley, it could almost guarantee a kill with one shot. And remember, both Michael Whittman and Otto Carius used this model of the PzIII early in their career and survived, even against the T34.

pflmng
lkoky
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: December 06, 2004
KitMaker: 62 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 07:30 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The PzIII had armor ranging from 71mm thick on the hull front, to 54mm on the turret front. The M2 Bradley, assuming the original issue vehicle before armor upgrades, averages 35mm on the turret front and 30mm on the hull.



Interesting, didnt realise armour on M2 is that thin. Thanks for the interesting insight.
Drader
Visit this Community
Wales, United Kingdom
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 09:42 PM UTC

Quoted Text

The only variant is that it takes a lot less training for someone to shoot accurately with the modern weapons.



When my father was learning to use the Rifle No 4 during his Royal Marine training in 1944 there was some very positive reinforcement of the training methods by the sergeants if anyone failed to score consistent bulls at 400 yards
rfeehan
Visit this Community
Kansas, United States
Joined: July 20, 2003
KitMaker: 727 posts
Armorama: 648 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 02:10 AM UTC
Given fire on the move accuracy, tow missiles and the fact that the chain gun on the bradley would most likely destroy any optics on the panzer III regardless of penetration due to rounds on target I think this is no contest. The sheer volume of rounds hitting the Panzer III would make the crew bail out anyway.

As far as the infantry question, keep in mind weapons evolved for a reason. Look at the studied average ranges for infantry engagements. Again no contest the WW2 squad isn't going to have the luxury of having 600 plus yards to fire at the moderns, nor were all WW2 infantry trained to fire effectively at this range (trained yes but trained effectively is another story). The modern squad has not only full auto/3 round burst capabilty on all weapons, they in many cases have optics fitted, they have 40mm grenade launchers, body armor and night vision...

A few years ago we actually used to play Rogue Spear (a fps based on the Clancy books and known for it's accuracy in depicting cqb) and give one side semi-auto rifles while the other took modern guns like the M4 and others. It was no contest there either regardless of the skill of the players on the other team.

Fun topic but I don't honestly see anything from the 1940s going toe to toe with current tech.
 _GOTOTOP