WW2 German Tiger vs M1 Abrams Tank War - Who Will Win? - ARMA 3 

Welcome! ;)

@@GaMiNGSL515Thailand modern 🇹🇭 vs 🇯🇵 empire of Japan

@@B-zu3ee hmm....they using the russian tank which used in 1950-60?

Hhhhhhhhhhhh

Yes

IKR, underrated comment

Well at least they didn't say Ferdinands

Now lets see if the Abrams can get any kills while being airdropped.

Kursk probably. Maybe D Day. But yeah.

Dean B Boom! Shots fired! ^^

Yep. Rhinemetal designed it.

While The 105mm Abrams was designed by british

And America redesign a copy of a M256A1

Now that I didn't know...I knew it was a 120mm smoothbore, but I didn't know it was German engineered.

@George Smith Patton Jr. Leopard 2 to be exact! Leopard 1 was independetly designed by Porsche

That bit about air-dropping an Abrams really made me cringe; while the C-17A can indeed transport an Abrams, it would have to land in order to offload it. Also, that shaking of the GPS screen when the machine guns were fired was ridiculous.

I thought that Abram tanks could fire while moving because of Gyro scopic stabilization.

@@LateLost It can. When he said "firing on the move would have made them more difficult targets", he was talking about the moving Abrams being more difficult for the Tigers to hit.

Speaking as a retired Naval Officer who has actually fired an Abrams main gun, that was some pretty poor shooting on the part of the Abrams gunners. The tank commanders weren't much better. The Tigers shouldn't have landed a round in the same zip code. That said, a realistic encounter would have made an incredibly dull video. 5:5

Also, no one us bailing out of a Tiger after being hit by a sabot round.....

Hmm... except that even with a modern-day tank, I wouldn't underestimate the punching power of a AT 88 mm shell fired by one of these WW2 German tanks. Edit: I mean, the muzzle velocity and the shell's weight remain the same. So even though modern armour could shrug it off for a considerable time, I'd still not let them take as many shots at they want at me with their WW2 cannons and I'd deal with them as I'd spot them. Not poste-haste, but I wouldn't leave them alone.

@@Briselance Modern tanks are designed to withstand penetrating rounds with many times the ability of the 88mm KwK 36. The only real damage these shells could do would be the concussive/kinetic force.

@@Briselance At 100 meters against flat armor the Tiger manages roughly 200mm of penetration with APCR, its most penning ammo on flat armor. Modern kinetic rounds go through 500mm at least, the Tiger has no chance of scratching the paint off of the Abrams frontally, and the Abrams is way too mobile for the Tiger to ever get a side shot.

Leave Mike Tyson out of this

It's more like a 13 year old kid fighting an Adult Seasoned Undefeated Unbelted MMA fighter..

Oh how far we’ve come in 80 years

Right, we could have fought the entire war with just a single M1 and wouldn't have suffered a single casualty.

@@michaelgamble2848 I wouldn't go that far, an Abrams is far and away more effective than anything made 80 years ago but it's still just one tank

@@FerretJohn yeah, and they didn't have a single weapon or armament that could damage it, one would be more than enough.

@@michaelgamble2848 The M1 isn't made of Adamantium, it can't fly over mountains or barricades or rivers, it's only got so much fuel in the tank, only so many rounds in the weapons locker, and it can't fight airplanes. Drop enough bombs on it and it will be stopped

@@FerretJohn why would it need to climb a mountain? Don't they have roads? Don't rivers have bridges? What 1940's obstacle could it not just simply drive over? You act like they can't just put more fuel and ammunition in it if it runs low.... From what I know of the tank and the bombs of then time, none of them were powerful enough to destroy it, maybe knock a track off but that's about it. If modern armour piercing munitions can't damage it, certianly nothing from that era will.

Second shot wouldve been needed the same reason that they were in OIF. The tanks kept moving after sabot round went through the tanks. Every crew I resupplied wanted heat and returned the sabot rounds.

Shut up boot 😂😂😂

Gulf War version 1. When we ran down the Medina division the tanks were scoring 1 round hits against moving targets at a long enough range that the opposing tanks sights couldn't target them. A tiger moved a lot slower than a T-72. The only thing that the tigers gun could have done is a mobility kill targeting the tracks. I found a tungsten sabot round post war from a soviet tank that hadn't penetrated but had the first 2 inches bent at a right angle. At the ranges in the video it would have been 1 shot 1 kill while moving.

Its an honor to reply your comment sir

Ui99999090

Hmm not really tigers might have a chance to disable the abrams from the rear then destroy it track ultimatly shooting the abrams untill they have no more ammo or the crew gets heat stroke

@@Bababoy6969 how exactly would a tiger that is slower than the abrams get on it's rear? plus the abrams can shoot on the move, not to mention the therman and night vision.

@@xcd87 A lucky hit to the track could immobilize the Abrams, which could allow the Tigers to make a sacrificial push around the Abrams. They would take massive losses in the maneuver to maybe get a Pyrrhic victory.

@@nilok7 dude an Abrams can engage well out to 2 kilometers. The tigers don’t stand even the slightest chance

@@Constance_tinople Depends on the terrain, but I did say the gambit needs to start with a lucky hit. Never underestimate chance to screw up a good plan.

It's a game🤦🏾‍♂️.

@@subjectc7505 and. It’s a shit game. Because I’ve seen what an M1 does in combat. It can find, track and take out other tanks at 2 kms. I remember in 91. The M1’s were hitting T 55s and 72’s at 2kms while the Iraqis were behind berms and only had a 1300 meter MER. So, those 20 Tigers would have been waisted. And the US doesn’t expose its tanks except to shoot. And it can target two tanks at once and fire on the both in seconds.

Bingo. And they wouldn't even know what punched their ticket. But the idea of seeing the Allies Collective Jaw Drop when one of those roll in. Inspiring morale boost.

@@mikebox it’s just a game. Cool your jets.

@@knightsaberami01 There is a old old kirk douglas film i saw when i was a kid when a modern 1980s aircraft carrier goes through a storm and finds them selves pre pearl harbour and find themselves deciding whether to interfere and intercept the Japanese with a fleet of f14 tomcats and give them the suprise of their lives and change history.

i think this is where the video lacks, a M1 can hit a T72 from a mile away at full speed, ARMA doesnt really simulate this, remember the Iraqui T72's didnt even know what hit them in 91

@@StormHunter71 Both T72 and abrams have the same technology, it depends on the crew how experienced and how well trained they are.

@@Sw1ftFPS No the 72s didnt have the same tech. The M1 was able to shoot on the move and could see at night. The 72s failed in both parts and got obliterated as a result. 72s failed again in OIF again for the exact same reasons.

@@Sw1ftFPS Soviet T72s, maybe - the export models were often shipped with less capable systems.

@@drtidrowthe Soviet T72 was still a hand crank gun.

Was just about to comment on how horribly nerfed the Abrams' gunnery was.

True. With a muzzle velocity of 5,450 feet per second the M1s' rounds would be hitting instantly, and personally I'd have hit those Tigers with rocks. The gunnery was THAT bad.

Thermals and flir exist like just launch smoke

The problem is the player controlling M1 Abraham of firing target. 😂✌️

M1 can fire on the move they would never need to stop unlike the tiger. Also firing a Sabot round I dont think the you would need to hit the tigers more than once

when facing an MBT with a heavy tank, the quantity you need is gonna be in the 3 digits

@@lilzenongene just use old soviet tactics and send one tank more than the enemy has ammunition lmao The Tiger H1 carries 92 shells so sending 93 tanks ensures a win

@@otaviom6480 not if the 93rd tank throws a track.

@@bryonslatten3147 that's why the soviets would send 200 tanks and 50000 infantry with artiraly and anti tanks, doesn't matter what you kill, they can replace everything instantly.

@@abdes6234 well russia during ww2 believe it or not was suffering from a manpower shortage so they used civilians from the countries they "liberated"

"I always like to bring a little irony to a fire fight"

Pretty sure it's still produced in Germany.

I love my VW Jetta great design

It was actually co-developed by America and Germany, with America backing out to put their own spin onto the design. That's like saying a Ford Model T is a German design because Mercedes made the first car

@@saltyfloridaman7163 Sorry to burst your bubble man, but it was the MBT.70 TANK which was a co-developed by the USA and W. Germany, not the gun. The gun is the Rheinmetall Rh-120 L/44, designed and produced EXCLUSEVELY by the West German Rheinmetall-DeTec AG company. The current Bundeswehr Leopard 2A7 currently mounts the more powerful L/55 version, not adapted by the Abrams.

Check your math. Better than three miles = 5,000 meters, the M1's computer only generated a ballistic solution out to 4,000 meters.

@@DK-ed7be Longest acknowledged shot is 5100m. With APFSDS. HEAT rounds go father and a Tiger is a bigger target than a T-72. Also, everybody trains for when the computer goes down.

Just curious did you know a Chrysler engineer named Glen Orourk (however its spelled

@@duanesamuelson2256 No, that name does not ring a...Wait...O'Rourke. (I had to sound out your original) It sounds familiar but I can't put a name to a face, so I am going to say no

@@MunDane68 Chrysler engineer that led the design team for the gun site/tracking system... sorry about you having to sound out his name lol. I was just curious since you were involved in the early days and he did a lot a running around doing training in the late 70's early 80's. I got a guided tour (along with a lot of others) of the factory because of him (friends with my dad, and previously had worked for my father when my dad was designing the drive for the GAU ).

They had more than 20 at the battle of Kursk!

@@t.versteeg3723 Nice! What I said was more of a joke. The Tiger was notorious for being difficult to fix and maintain on the field as it was over engineered.

20 tigers in the same infantry would be like chainsaws in a pile of wood, would destroy the enemy formations in half.

@@frisk_tw6024 Except if they went up against a single M1 Abrams

@@AD-1138 true

Does Arma model that system?

@@GeraldMMonroe I do not know, it'd be cool if they did though.

As long as you get a good laser return.

@@patraic5241 That is correct! And also, as long as the gunner has the right ammo selected lmao. Watching that sabot fly way over the damn target, you cringe inside cuz you know "Damn, Its still on HEAT" and you wait for range control or your TC to come over comms with some smart ass remark and prob a smack to the back of your head. Good times

@@stonecyfer8225 Oh yeah. I've seen it happen. 😂

or alternatively in real life you wouldn't be able to shoot 4km. houses, hills, forests,.. if this was in the German Rheinland you'd have only a few hundred meters unless you somehow end up shooting from one hillside to another

Well obviously. But if you can flank it, you can still destroy a modern tank from sides and rear because the armour is like 30-60mm thick and Tiger 1 APCBC rounds penetrated up to 190mm. It's invulnerable, yes, but frontally. If you throw enough numbers you'll eventually get swarmed and killed. Also metal fatigue is a factor, you shoot the plate long enough, it will eventually deform and break. Chip away bit by bit until it eventually penetrates. However obviously a Abrams or any modern tank can just outrun them even in reverse so landing shots on it would be extremely difficult. But still, everything can be destroyed with enough numbers. Nothing is invulnerable. Also you can destroy an Abrams with HE rounds by attempting trapshots between the hull and turret, or shooting the upper hatches and the shockwave will cave in the top of the tank right on the crew - top being the least armoured part and even relatively small HE shells can do it. Or... You just pepper the tank with HE until every external module - cannon, machine guns, optics, communications and tracks are destroyed. Sure the crew will live and tank will be intact but will be basically a bare metal bunker and nothing else.

@@egonieser the tiger is way to slow to flank a modern tank.... and makes way to many noises to not hear it flank. Plus many modern tanks even have to much armor on the side to survive at guns so i think the tiger would have 0 chance. This match is kind of useless because you know who would win by not watching the vid

@@Rahayu.76 yes the Israeli M-51 Super Sherman. I love that tank. Imagine if those were around in 1944.

@@cedric9874 I'm talking in large enough numbers obviously not 1 Vs 1. Abrams can still only shoot one target at a time. The enemy can spread out enough to land shots from various angles. Also not all fights are in the open. In urban environment a Tiger fan flank an Abrams and you can't see them through buildings. Numbers will eventually win anyway. While Abrams engages tanks in front, there's nothing stopping some Tigers (or any tank for that matter) flanking it from around the building. The situations can be endless. But obviously it's all only hypothetical, none of this would ever happen IRL, it's just for a bit of fun and speculation

@@egonieser 14 M1s destroyed a entire brigade in desert storm. Between 30-50 armored vehicles if memory serves. Your argument lacks real knowledge of the tank. Sorry, just my opinion.

the problem with that is, AIR POWER, once the enemy knows you have 5 SUPER ULTRA MEGA TANKS, those tanks are going to be PRIORITY #1 to eliminate, German Stukas could be fitted with 500lb bombs (which they used in WW2 to take out thousands of Soviet tanks) Pretty sure a Stuka dropping a 500lb bomb on an M1 is going to do some damage.

Just take 200 tigers to run at top speed and ram over the M1 will have a greater chance

@@tbirum 500kg* 500lbs is 220kg and those can ve carried by a Bf 109 The R2 Stuka could carry even a 1000kg (2200lb) bomb at the cost of basically not being able to lift off the ground from the weight and slightly underpowered engine

@@tbirum The Stukas would have been the tank killer variant with the big cannons on the side. They used them to great effect on the Eastern front against even better tanks than the US and British had through most of WW2.

@@tbirum Firstly, you would need a direct hit on top of it to do any damage, at most the tracks would get knocked off. There's video footage of Abrams going over giant IED's and surviving perfectly fine after getting flung into the air. You're also assuming the Abrams would be a stationary target for the stuka to be anywhere close to accurate. All WW2 tanks needed to be still in order to be remotely accurate. Abrams is deadly accurate at top speed. also you're assuming that the Germans would even be able to see them from over 2 miles away with their more primitive optics.

Yeah they never would have seen the Abrams before they were all destroyed

Here is one difference I will give to the Tigers vs the T-55s. The Tigers would have been professionally trained soldiers for the most part depending on the year the wehrmacht troops came from. The Iraqis in the T-55s? They probably barely knew how to drive the tank and fire the gun.

Waw murica comparing his tank to a WW2 tank what a fair fight🙄

@@kkjkkj2584 How about we put in a Leopard or a Challenger or a Merkava? Would that satisfy your idiotic comment about any modern tank going back in time and battling one of the strongest tanks of WW2. They picked the Abrams because they are one of the best tanks in the world. But the ending would still be the same with all the tanks I mentioned.

@@kkjkkj2584 Nazi sympathizer

Machine guns: hehe buayyyyy

If you take the largest contingent, sparta ever fielded, 5000 Spartan Hoblites, 10000 Perioikoi Hoblites, 200 Mounted Scouts, 36000 light armed consisting of Perioikoi Peltasts, Skiritai, Mercenaries and of the largest part, Helotes. The light armed troops armed with bows, slings, javelins, swords, daggers, axes and light shields, I would say the Abram has no chance to survive. It will cause enormous casulties but will be broken. As the greeks can see that it is an armed vehicle covered in steel, they will propably try to throw pots with burning oil on it. When that covers the air openings and other gabs, it will be soon a bad thing for the tank. And the tank has most likely not enough ammunition for such a large army. When we think about the fact that most bullets will not hit something. I think it is still realistic that Sparta will report zero casulties (Mercenaries and Helot slaves can't be taken as serious casulties). While the Americans kill maby 1-2000 enemies, maby more. This scenario is of course in the rough mountainous regions of greece as the americans attack. It is most unrealistic for Sparta to invade other, larger powers. And in these regions it is easy for the lightly armed Lakedaimonian troops to surround that tank. They could even try to starve the tank crew. like the afghan did to the russians. In this chase the Abram is in an even worse situation, because even if they try, in ancient greece is no chance to refuel that thing. They run quickly out of food, water and fuel. Have to surrender and are most likely put into slavery. The soldiers in the tank don't even have a chance against the skirmishers of the Lakedaimonian State, when they are outside the tank. Arrows and sling leads don't give you a clear direction from where the enemy shoots, arrows show the general direction and lead and stones none. Arrowheads slid open Kevlar, like knifes do, too. And sling ammunition like lead and stones don't penetrate but smash anything under the armor. And a 200g lead ball is not funny when it hits with 300mps.

@@jarlnils435 I disagree.The Abrams would just have to drive through them at full tilt,those not killed outright would rout and be picked off by secondary armament and Mpat rounds

@@stevenbreach2561 you clearly have no idea how a battle works or how ancient armies work. First: to muster an army of that scale, half of the Lakedaimonian male population of the right age, the spartan kings and elder council have to recognize and understand, what danger comes from the tank. So there have to be an early skirmish. Second: When they have understood the danger, and mustered that army, they would know to not engage an for them clearly recognizeble artillery engine in a open battle and in phalanx formation but they would skirmish, trying to attack from multible points with light infantry, trying to throw pots with burning oil into the gabs, it is clear for them that there where hot air and smoke comes out a way into the war vehicle is. There they would throw their fire bombs at. Third: they would never use their whole army at one time. But sneaky troops. Night attacks. They would make sure that the soldiers never have a time out. They would be under constant alarm, never sleeping. For days. Even if there is no attack, it needs only a few slingers to throw rocks at the tank every few minutes from their hiding in the hillsides, bushes and woods. Fourth: At some point the soldiers have to try and leave the tank to get some water and maby food. And when they leave, they will get attacked and killed by hundreds of missles, shot at them without warning and without any sound.

@@jarlnils435 whatever

That's what I love the most modern tanks use a computer to figure out how to land a shot while the German crews did it without a computer go figure who has the more gun skills.

@@wulfthofengaming457 And guess how much that counts for when that APFSDU sabot smashes in one side of your turret, and out the other, leaving your crew splattered all over the inside of their wrecked tank. Just sayin’.

@@AMylander you want to know the funny part sure a american tank useing a german main gun to kill german tanks go figure. Just so if you have doubts The gun, known as the M256, was based on the L/44 tank gun, although manufactured at Watervliet Arsenal. Tanks armed with versions of Rheinmetall's gun produced under licence.

@@wulfthofengaming457 Ironic, yet irrelevant.

@@wulfthofengaming457 War is about winning and bringing your opponent to the negotiating table, it's not a sport or a videogame. Even modern day German Leopards utilize computers for firing. Also, complaining how America utilizes a german main gun is asinine considering how weaponry is exchanged and borrowed since the dawn of time. The panzerschreck utilized by Germans in the late part of the war was a reverse engineered American bazooka, the only difference is that they increased its size.

And with the crew already buttoned up inside to boot.😹🤦‍♂️

It would have been a tank-cake.

The Abrams loader would deserve a medal for pulling that off Average 3 seconds per shell, if you assume the breech is empty until they sighted the first Tiger.

@@roguevector1268 In 2009, my crew shot top top of my regiment. We had a 3 tank engagement all main gun that put us to those points for top tank. My crew killed 3 tanks in 10.3 seconds. That's a round out the barrel every 3.4 seconds. Yes our loader very much was putting up 3 second load times, but the whole crew made that happen in that time frame. We were all awarded ARCOMs and got aft cap trophies for it. yay us right? And no Abrams runs empty breach in combat...that's silly. Most every crew will have SABOT or HEAT indexed, and change accordingly if needed. Not like the Tiger could even penetrate Abrams armor anyways...it would be a turkey shoot.

That make The tank much cooler than regular one

@@enochvarga7570 Even if a tiger got into position to attack the side of an abrams, which it wouldn't, I'm pretty sure it still wouldn't get to the crew compartment. What you're thinking about with RPGs is ERA, which is an add-on on top of the sideskirts. Below that, there's still the equivalent of ~300-400mm of armor which an 88 doesn't have a hope of penetrating.

@@xavi.cat.4095 300-400mm....for HEAT proyectiles

@@enochvarga7570 Well we agree on the 88 then. Sure it would go through tusk like butter but be stopped by the armor. I didn't really say anything about MBT armor layouts though so I'm not sure why you wrote a whole text about it. I just said ERA is put on the sides because ERA is especially effective against HEAT projectiles like RPGs while composite has no special advantage against it because its focus is on stopping solid projectiles. There are other things I could reply to in your comment but it's pretty off-topic so I won't.

@@katze3659 the 300-400mm measurement is the composite armor translated to rolled homogeneous armor, HEAT shells are usually countered with ERA

Ah yep you can sorry, it's not done but is capable. Aircraft has to be at 150mph for drop. Stryker or Bradley for airdrop armoured support usually.

@@2566Conan nope, not in testing. Didn't work. And do the crews supposedly parachute in seperately?

@@bdinaz Yes. In airdrops and LAPES, The crew parachutes individually. Riding the silk in the AFV is pure Hollywood.

@@HM2SGT M1A2 Abrams is close to 70tons

@@HM2SGT yeah, they tried doing an airdrop of an unloaded and unfueled m1 a long time ago with disastrous results.

Wondered the same thing. An ambush from a hull down position

Only thing to kill an abrams was another abrams

Good luck trying to penetrate that ERA (Explosive Reactive Armor)

Ehh...40 v 1. Abrams magazine is around 40 rounds.

@@CombatIneffective so we talk about ~14-20 vs 1, because the Abrams accuracy will be ~33% to 50%

I would agree with that. This fight was 4 vs 1 since it was 20 vs 5.

@@oliverbecker8906 Even then, m1 abrams can sit just outside the tigers range. either that or get close at night since the tiger lacks any kind of optic enhancing technology

@@oliverbecker8906 with professionally trained crews manning them? I feel the accuracy would be 50% on the very low end or if by some chance, a tiger scores a hit on the optics of an Abrams. But that is if they can get in range to start with. The Abrams is confirmed scoring tank kills out to 2,500 meters. The tiger had kills scored out to 1,200 meters. That is more than double the range. How many rounds can an abrams crew fire during that massive distance before a Tiger even gets in range to score a hit? And not even a kill shot mind you. The armor of a tiger was 120mm thick at best. An Abrams has some spots at 350mm and that is low end. I think the only factor is accuracy and precision of the crew firing the 120mm gun and ammo supply. Low end is 20 to 1 in my thoughts, but that is 50% accuracy.

Mostly a limitation of the game

This is War of Thunder. It isn't World of Warcraft.

@@cristsan4171 Its actually Arma 3, which doesn't have many limitations...

well its kind of doctrinal. even tho, modern mbt with fully stabilised guns and sights can fire on the move at higher speeds, in general they perform a so called "Feuerhalt" a firing stop. this is part of the training and is there to ensure full accuracy the highest hit propability.

@@toasturself7228 Like you said, Army tree, not war of witchcraft

You got me in the first half ngl

Send em to singlehandedly demolish the Africa Korps.

would be a short event, M1 winning.... Until it ran out of 120mm ammo or out of Jet Fuel! then its just an armored box on the side of road/field.

The Final Countdown-The Ground War Sequel

@@Torthak stationary bunker that can shoot you with auxiliary power lol

@@Torthak Once it's sitting still though, it's a dead duck.

If a t-72 can’t beat it then why would an outdated heavy tank from 70 years ago could beat this well designed masterpiece? 😂

Ok that is enough the Abrams will be just useless unless they use like an sniper attack but in an tank gun

I approve it

@@ssb2lostplayer926 16 vs 218 That would mean each Abrams would need to kill around 14 tanks. 18 rounds in the ready-rack and another 18 in the semi-ready. MPAT, CAN, and OR would be the rounds you'd need. No need to bother with APFSDS, MPAT would be more efficient. RIP to the loaders loading up all that at the ammo point and then loading in the engagement.

@@orangephoenixbrazier4978 then they attack them from afar with radar stuff and be reinforced by more tanks but I think the budget will be uhh idk

Specially a German tank crew that just marches into a open field valley and sacrifices themselves to a much more superior fire power.

Even then, a civilian aiming the gun would have the targeting computer do most of the work for them and do better than ARMA 3 (which sadly doesn't seem to do the calculations).

A civilian named Stevie Wonder.

@SchoolTerrorist No, because even the short 75mm Sherman has a chance at knocking out a Tiger frontally, and the 76mm Sherman reliably penetrates the front at distance. The Tiger wasn't a bad tank, but it is massively overhyped.

@@Theo-vn9hm haha it feels more like a t-26 vs a panther

I'd like to see them rebuild the tiger tank with today's technology and see how it'd fair against today's tanks. I bet people would be surprised. They were far ahead of their time when they were originally built and a better design than anything the allies had. If they could of produced them at the same rate as American M4s and Russian T34s the out come of the war may have been totally different.

@@Buttonssf The tiger was overpriced, had shitty fuel consumption, tendency for the tracks to freeze in ice and mud and was overweight so couldn't cross many bridges. You unironically hit the point there - they *couldnt* produce them at the same rate, because they were overengineered, as with most other german weaponry in the war (MP40 build time vs PPSh-42 or M3 is a similar example of german overengineering and special tooling costing them in production rate). Sure, it had a mean gun and formidable armour, but how often were tiger tanks actually engaged by allied armour in the war vs immobilised by infantry or artillery? Almost as many Tiger tanks were lost due to non-combat losses than combat losses, (panzerworld.com/tiger-losses) Modern tanks would beat a tiger due to ability to move and shoot accurately due to stabilisation and better optiics/ballistic computers, outperform it in range, outperfom it in speed and being able to absolutely penetrate it due to advancements in HEAT and APFSDS ammunitions. It wouldn't stand a chance.

@@timothywilkins1831 OH I agree, but it's also unfair to compare a tiger tank to an abrams. They both have different technologies. Now if they did like I said and rebuilt the tiger with today's technology and compared the two. It'd be a little more better of a comparison as they'd be equal technology wise. I'd absolutely love for them to rebuild the tiger, king tiger, panther, M4 T34-85 and put today's technology into them. I bet they'd be cheaper to produce and would Excell. That's just what I think. As gasoline is more pure today than it was back then. Steel and manufacturing procedures are definitely much better compared to world War 2 time. I don't know, I think it'd be interesting to see.

@@Buttonssf well to be blunt if we made them today their designs would by necessity be completely different. -Their conventional armor would have to be replaced by composite armor to even remotely stand a chance of surviving a direct hit from anything in service which takes up a hell of a lot more space and would be impossible to put on a tank even remotely shaped like a WW2 tank. While the frontal hull and turret armor of the Tiger 1 got up to a max of 4.1in (102mm) thick modern composite armors take up several feet of space. -There are no modern tank guns small enough to fit any of their turrets either as 88mm guns like those on the Tiger are simply outdated and underpowered. Quite simply there's nothing advantageous about those WW2 designs if you tried to update them to modern standards using existing modern technology. -The designs are grossly inefficient to protect from modern threats (especially air power, APFSDS, and HEAT) as their armor profiles were too boxy with no sloping to increase the effective protection (this only appeared by the time the Panther and Tiger 2 were introduced). This was a major downfall of the Tiger as for all it's vaunted "impenetrable armor" even in WW2 it could be penetrated even by the standard 75mm Sherman at 300m and by the 76mm armed Sherman from out to 800m with the standard APCBC shell and out to 1,100m with the HVAP/APCR shell. The likes of the M26 Pershing's 90mm gun and the T26E4's Long 90mm gun simply made a joke out of the armor found on the likes of the Tiger 1, Panther, and Tiger 2. -To make the capable of surviving even a few hits from modern ammunition you'd need to increase the size and change the profile to allow the addition of sloped composite armor -To make the tank capable of killing any of it's contemporaries it'd need the turret enlarged to fit a gun at minimum 105mm in diameter and optimally a 120mm gun. To make any WW2 design work as a modern design you'd need to change the tank so aggressively as to completely divorce itself from the design you were arguing a point for in the first place. These designs never came up again for a reason, they're simply garbage by modern standards and the likes of Tiger 1 were already garbage and outclassed by late 1944 into 1945 when it started meeting opponents that could frontally penetrate it's once impervious armor at long ranges and more reliably resist it's once unstoppable gun.

inside certain ranges and at certain angles, the Abrams can move faster than the Tigers can traverse their turrets, while also firing on the move.

Magipanzer I guess...

@@krisyoung681 yea, it is, but i said magic-tiger to refer to a tiger tank of nazis but with magic. XD

@@josuereyeshernandez8180 you saw this novel in scribblehub? Elf nazi

@@krisyoung681 lmao you guys read it too?

I really hope you aren't being serious about radar controlled anything on an M1.

@@Abrams-dq5fi Maybe "radar" isn't the correct term. It does have a much better targeting system than the Tiger.

they do not have radar controlled gun sights.

they cant pin an abrams from the front or the sides even at point blank range... in fact they probably couldnt pin any modern first world nations main battle tank. there is some stuff floating around online of the results of old tanks verses the abrams, showing off that the most they can do is put a few dings in the armor. its frankly amazing how far we've come in 75+ years

Here is a difference. The piston engined fighters of the era would actually have a somewhat better chance if they get in close. While missiles provide the standoff ability, the quick closure rate with the different speeds means the radars and IR seekers might not lock the targets right. The piston engine aircraft could actually turn better in some cases too.

You can set this up in WT and in DCS.

I kill a abrams With a Tiger 2 With a frontal shot at 500 meters

@@mickd8490 Lol Gunners aren't that good enough to Hit that turret ring,this ain't warthunder my friend, Abrams tank crews will just fire them at longer distances , they're all fucked before they would see an Abrams tank,that's what happened to the fxkn T-72's during the Iraq war LOL

@@mickd8490 Please, do go on. I want to know what you have to say.

@@mickd8490 what too much warthunder does to a mf:

Sure it can- once.

I think we gave a bunch of them away for free to the Taliban

Wouldn't that be unfair You mean the opposite

Is there even 15 armatas?

forgot about Leopard tank?

Same result, Abrams is inspired by challenger

@@kim99jung not in the slightest was the Abrams inspired by Challenger, the Chobham armour is a British invention but that's as far as it goes.

The other Panzer waiting around the corner:

Both the m1a1 and a2 have a 120mm smoothbore gun.

@@jesseservin4012 Thanks for the correction. My recollection was from the first generation M1 which had the 105mm. The point is still valid. This would out range the 88mm on the tiger easily.

@@RobertAndersonRALA true, wich is why I referred to the a1 and the a2 instead of the original m1.

@@jesseservin4012 the original Abrams are all updated

NATO will win because Britain and the USA is in NATO with nuclear warheads (except France because its not in NATO but in EU) if the NATO countries fight with the Germans the EU members will also join even if you are not in EU or you are EU for example Turkey is not in EU but its in NATO in result non EU countries will also join unless they are not in NATO or EU but they can use brexit lol

Lmao the German's would get crushed faster than a soda can in a hydraulic press.

A Tiger's 88 cannot hurt an M1 even at point-blank range. An Abram's front armor is 600mm equivalent RHA(rolled homogeneous armor) and it's sides and rear are 300. The KwK36's APCBC shot can pen 122mm at 1km, APCR 185mm at same.

@@benlaskowski357 amount of armor covering the power pack in the back? 0…. Spent many a morning standing behind an Abrams warming up before we mounted up and rolled out.

@@nickbryan217 How much armor is there?

@@benlaskowski357 practically none in the rear where the power pack is. Frontal armor is tough nut, side armor is decent but after the number 1&2 skirts there’s not much armor protecting the track unless you have the TUSK. So like I said the Tiger could score a mobility kill (bust the track, road wheel, drive sprocket, torsion bars, etc.), maybe get lucky and take the gun out, or get really luckily and sneak behind and shoot it in the ass. Ass shot will most likely take out power pack, so definitely a mobility kill or they could get really lucky and get a catastrophic. But, and this is a huge BUT, the Abrams will identify, target, and destroy the Tigers before the Tigers will ever even see the Abrams. That thermal site makes it incredibly hard for anything with a major heat signature to sneak by. And I’m pretty sure tigers exhaust straight up into the air, nice heat bloom, they’re dead.

@@nickbryan217 Tigers do, and Abrams has a big but. 😁