# One M1-Abrams Tank with unlimited amo vs King Edward I of England. Who wins?



## ledmitter_nli (May 7, 2013)

The Belligerents:

*One M1-Abrams Tank 
*Crew 4 (commander, gunner, loader, driver)
Unlimited ammunition (hypothetically on-board).
Unlimited fuel (hypothetically on-board).

vs.

*King Edward I of England's entire army.*
15,000 men
2,500 cavalry
12,500 infantry

Who wins?


----------



## Stress_Test (May 7, 2013)

Unless the tank crew also has unlimited food on board, and never sleeps, then the Brits win. (heck even with no sleep and unlimited food, the Brits would probably win)

It may be slaughter at first but eventually the old army will figure out a way to exploit the weaknesses of the tank. Just because a group of people are from another era doesn't mean they're stupid.


----------



## Flying Turtle (May 7, 2013)

My money's on the Brits, too. Just lure the tank into a pit.

Geoff


----------



## TEEJ (May 7, 2013)

I don't really think anyone would win per se, as there's no given objective for the war. With no objective to accomplish, even if one side kills the other, nothing is accomplished.

Also - Edwards army is pretty much in England...I'm not sure how the tank would get there to do anyone any damage anyway....and, unless the army gets in boats, crosses the Atlantic, or at LEAST the channel (If we allow a tank to be there?)...So, they are either not threatened by the tank, or, can slip away where the tank can't follow....removing the threat.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (May 7, 2013)

Stress_Test said:


> Unless the tank crew also has unlimited food on board, and never sleeps, then the Brits win. (heck even with no sleep and unlimited food, the Brits would probably win)
> 
> It may be slaughter at first but eventually the old army will figure out a way to exploit the weaknesses of the tank. Just because a group of people are from another era doesn't mean they're stupid.



Wouldn't the sight and sound of a .50 cal machine gun shredding infantry from 500 yards appear (alien) enough to destroy a primitive army's will to fight?


----------



## ledmitter_nli (May 7, 2013)

TEEJ said:


> I don't really think anyone would win per se, as there's no given objective for the war. With no objective to accomplish, even if one side kills the other, nothing is accomplished.
> 
> Also - Edwards army is pretty much in England...I'm not sure how the tank would get there to do anyone any damage anyway....and, unless the army gets in boats, crosses the Atlantic, or at LEAST the channel (If we allow a tank to be there?)...So, they are either not threatened by the tank, or, can slip away where the tank can't follow....removing the threat.



Objective is last man standing 

Also, lets say the Tank was in Falkirk.


----------



## thedoc007 (May 7, 2013)

The tank wouldn't stand a chance...there is no substitute for numbers. Look up the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq had tanks, Iran had foot soldiers and children who were willing to die to help defeat the Iraqis. The Iraqis took some territory initially, but within a couple years, the Iranians had won all of the territory back. The next 6 years, despite a MASSIVE technological disadvantage, Iran was on the offensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War


----------



## 880arm (May 7, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> Wouldn't the sight and sound of a .50 cal machine gun shredding infantry from 500 yards appear (alien) enough to destroy a primitive army's will to fight?



It definitely would for at least the short term. However, if the Abrams remained a threat to them, they would take it out in time.

As proof of my point, see the movie Independence Day :twothumbs


----------



## TEEJ (May 8, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> Objective is last man standing
> 
> Also, lets say the Tank was in Falkirk.



You can't make up an objective that simply means they want each other dead. They need to have a reason to fight, to be a real scenario. Defense of homes, avenge for cheating in a soccer game, etc.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (May 8, 2013)

TEEJ said:


> You can't make up an objective that simply means they want each other dead. They need to have a reason to fight, to be a real scenario. Defense of homes, avenge for cheating in a soccer game, etc.



I disagree. Men only need a reason to keep fighting. Getting them to start, is usually pretty easy.

Of course, there's always this:


"What is best in life: Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!"

~ Chance


----------



## Ken_McE (May 12, 2013)

Tanks like open ground. Medieval England would have been forested. Tanks like to have scouts, infantry support, a maintenance train. These guys wouldn't have any. In WW II tanks averaged, what, maybe 35 miles between breakdowns? If they lose a drive wheel or a track they turn into a big loud pillbox. 

Trying to sleep in a tank would be hell. If they come out, all the kings men will be there to say "hi". If they stay in they won't get much sleep. After three or four days without sleep they're going to be shooting at shadows, making stupid mistakes. Four men up against an army can't afford any mistakes.

If Edward were patient and disciplined he'd win. All he'd have to do is shadow them until they broke down or came out. The tank could control the area immediately around where it sat, but it could not hold any ground once it left.

One thing I haven't worked out is the what would an uneducated, ignorant, but intelligent & capable third worlder think it was? If they felt it was a dragon or demon they might waste a lot of time with prayers and holy water, or offering it sheep or something.


----------



## TEEJ (May 12, 2013)

Ken_McE said:


> Tanks like open ground. Medieval England would have been forested. Tanks like to have scouts, infantry support, a maintenance train. These guys wouldn't have any. In WW II tanks averaged, what, maybe 35 miles between breakdowns? If they lose a drive wheel or a track they turn into a big loud pillbox.
> 
> Trying to sleep in a tank would be hell. If they come out, all the kings men will be there to say "hi". If they stay in they won't get much sleep. After three or four days without sleep they're going to be shooting at shadows, making stupid mistakes. Four men up against an army can't afford any mistakes.
> 
> ...



I do think the food issue would potentially come into play, as the tank has unlimited ammo and fuel, but no food or water for the crew.

After a few days of dehydration, the tank crew would be a bit thirsty, and after a week or two, perhaps dead anyway if the medieval army could keep them bogged down.

Its possible with the unlimited fuel/ammo, that they could make their way to a water source, etc, maybe even steal food/forage, etc....afterall, they would have the speed to outflank a medieval army, and run for daylight if things got too hot.


An army of that era should have been able to see how it climbed obstacles, etc, and probably started to dig trenches/tank traps to try to get it stuck.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (May 12, 2013)

We could say there's a weeks worth of water and food rations in the tank. Isn't that standard military operating procedure to have *some* supplies on-board? Several bottles of water at the minimum. The body can go weeks without food.

What if the tank fired its main gun through the castle gate from the outset and moved inside sending its terrified volcano worshiper inhabitants and army onto the field with no hope for re-supply? The sheer amount of terror coming from the "beast" would send them scurrying off that sad little overcast island.

Regarding digging trenches - if the campaign was situated in Falkirk - that's a huge field. Like shooting fish in a barrel. 

The tank would persevere.


----------



## jtr1962 (May 12, 2013)

Use nuclear-tipped artillery and the tank wins hands down in a matter of hours. In fact, after one shot I think the entire army would surrender. Conventional ammo, probably the brits win but it would be a war of attrition. Eventually the tank crew will tire or make a mistake, and the tank will be disabled. I wonder if a trebuchet would be effective against a tank?

The larger problem though is even if the tank "wins", you still need massive numbers of ground troops for control (the old adage conquest is easy, control is not).


----------



## ledmitter_nli (May 12, 2013)

Hehe ... going nuclear is obscenely beyond the scope of fairness 

There is one realistic way (besides digging huge holes) that the English could easily defeat the tank.

Surprised nobody has thought of it yet.







Aren't they doing _this _in gaza?


----------



## dledmo (May 12, 2013)

Does the tank come with an unlimited portapotty and shower? How long could a crew stay completely enclosed?


----------



## ledmitter_nli (May 12, 2013)

It's not like they can't drive somewhere, with someone manning a .50 cal machine gun while another is taking a whiz.


----------



## nbp (May 12, 2013)

Numbers will win. 

You swarm a tank with thousands of people smashing at viewfinders and antennae with their weapons, jamming objects into the gun barrels and tracks and similar tactics, the tank will be incapacitated in relatively short order. There's just only so much you can do from inside when the vehicle is just completely covered in people and they don't stop coming.


----------



## StarHalo (May 12, 2013)

I'm not seeing any convincing arguments as to what the army would do to harm the tank, aside from the possibility of a hole in the ground, which they wouldn't be able to assemble for. Even if you cheated and gave the Brits a civil war era cannon and fired it at point blank range, nothing would happen..


----------



## Tana (May 12, 2013)

Eventually the tank will wear down, have a malfunction and lose... Throughout human history is shown that quality only overwhelms quantity at the beginning, with time it evens out and tilts to quantity side... Sure, the open area where modern tank can just move all the time and shoot at the same time at incredible rate of speed compared to those old times is fascinating but - everything wears down...

As for IEDs (road bombs)... I believe they used black powder at that time for both explosions and ammo so a POOF from that kind of IED would just shake the tank a little... I've seen few videos where IED exploded underneath the Abrams, shook it a little and they continued further on... it will do SOME damage, maybe lots of IEDs in that way would eventually wear the track to slip off and STOP the tank (where the swarm of people can just rush from all sides, get on it, find a hole and throw anything burning inside - loss of oxygen will do the rest)...

A old movie to watch with similar thematic is The Final Countdown, especially if you like airplanes...


----------



## ledmitter_nli (May 12, 2013)

These where not meant to infer IED's







They could bombard the tank using clay pots filled with flammable pitch or oil. Not sure how that work when the tank is on the move however. Perhaps an ambush. Maybe at night...


----------



## ledmitter_nli (May 12, 2013)

Tana said:


> Eventually the tank will wear down, have a malfunction and lose... Throughout human history is shown that quality only overwhelms quantity at the beginning, with time it evens out and tilts to quantity side... Sure, the open area where modern tank can just move all the time and shoot at the same time at incredible rate of speed compared to those old times is fascinating but - everything wears down...
> 
> As for IEDs (road bombs)... I believe they used black powder at that time for both explosions and ammo so a POOF from that kind of IED would just shake the tank a little... I've seen few videos where IED exploded underneath the Abrams, shook it a little and they continued further on... it will do SOME damage, maybe lots of IEDs in that way would eventually wear the track to slip off and STOP the tank (where the swarm of people can just rush from all sides, get on it, find a hole and throw anything burning inside - loss of oxygen will do the rest)...
> 
> A old movie to watch with similar thematic is The Final Countdown, especially if you like airplanes...



How about some perspective. Traveling from Kuwait to Baghdad is approx 330 miles.



The M1 Abrams is a pretty damn hardy machine...


----------



## ledmitter_nli (May 13, 2013)

StarHalo said:


> I'm not seeing any convincing arguments as to what the army would do to harm the tank, aside from the possibility of a hole in the ground, which they wouldn't be able to assemble for. Even if you cheated and gave the Brits a civil war era cannon and fired it at point blank range, nothing would happen..



It would be a slaughter on a massive scale, but impossible to overcome?

If there was someway to assemble and tackle the tank with hundreds of bodies, there could be an opening opportunity. But an opportunity for what? Sticking their swords and shields into the treads while it's moving and the turret is swinging around 360 degrees?


----------



## ledmitter_nli (May 13, 2013)

nbp said:


> Numbers will win.
> 
> You swarm a tank with thousands of people smashing at viewfinders and antennae with their weapons, jamming objects into the gun barrels and tracks and similar tactics, the tank will be incapacitated in relatively short order. There's just only so much you can do from inside when the vehicle is just completely covered in people and they don't stop coming.



Could be. There was Normandy, and the allies overcame after all, even with 12,000 casualties.

Except both sides are mobile in this particular scenario.


----------



## mattheww50 (May 13, 2013)

I agree that the tank ultimately loses. While the tank may unlimited ammunition and fuel, it lack unlimited crew, support staff and spare parts. The tank itself has many many many parts, that have very finite mean time between failure (MTBF). Generally earch hour in the field requires some number of hours of maintenance services. With Aircraft that the number of maintenance hours per combat hour can be shockingly high. I assume it is much lower for a tank, but definitely not zero. Absent the staff and parts to keep the tank running, it woud be a terror for a few days, but once things start to breakdown on the tank, the game would be over, as there would be no parts, and no support staff to repair/replace the failed stuff....ULtimately it would sipmly be a game of cat and mouse until the tank and/or its weapons systems breaks down.


----------



## dledmo (May 13, 2013)

Not that the M1 isn't an awesome weapon, but with only a crew of 4 how could they be expected to wage a campaign of more than a week? People have to sleep. The M1 would have the obvious advantage in the beginning but the attrition/siege factor would be to the advantage of the quantity.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (May 13, 2013)

I figure the infantry could learn to lay close to the ground as well to help reduce losses - while they 'think'


----------



## StarHalo (May 13, 2013)

Here's how I picture it: The English are moving across a field or are arranged for some sort of training, when suddenly the officers' area (since all the officers are usually convened together) erupts like a volcano - in that instant, the English army has just lost its entire leadership echelon in what appears to be a wrathful act of God. Some soldiers rush to the scene to provide aid, others flee in terror, but a moment later the second round strikes wherever the greatest number of horses is concentrated. There's no need for the tank to be anywhere nearby, this strike could be staged from roughly a mile away - a measure of distance too great to be of any offensive significance to a medieval army. Even if they did deduce where the fire was coming from, it would be impossible to approach with nothing more than cavalry speed, a cavalry which now has no leadership or direction. 

The tank would never even have to move, it would fire only a few rounds in this manner before the army disbanded and fled in terror from this completely undirectional and alien form of attack. They would most likely reconvene at some previously traveled point, sans leadership, and vow to avoid the mysterious and cursed area that nearly felled the entire English army.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (May 13, 2013)

+1

You know. I would pay ring side prices to see this :devil:

(okay, upon reflection, maybe not )


----------



## Marmaduke (May 14, 2013)

Remember the vastly outnumbered Spanish Conquistadors that slaughtered the mighty Incas/Aztec warriors. With no weaponry close to even denting the armor of the tank, and with an unlimited arsenal of rapid firing modern firepower against flesh and blood, the tank would slaughter the army in massive numbers and from afar. Remember this is an M1 Abrams. 

Even if troops could get fairly close to the tank its 45mph speed could easily evade the troops and keep a distance and constant killing advantage. Rotating turret would prevent being surrounded, again always killing and maiming massive numbers from afar. Even suicidal human wave attacks would be futile, what could they do even if they somehow managed to get close enough to be all over and on top of the tank? A quick jolt and spin would knock most off and grind the rest beneath the treads. The only advantage the English would have would be at the onset because of their large numbers. They would lose massive numbers very quickly with each attempted skirmish with the vehicle, even the slightest injury would remove a man or horse from the ranks of potential combatants.

I don't think the English troops could maintain much of an appetite for attacking the vehicle, not to mention the horror and demoralization it would create, especially in a time when dragons and monsters were still feared and considered quite real. 

The M1's one .50 cal machine gun firing 550 rpm could potentially obliterate the entire army in under a half hour, not to mention the M1's two 7.62 machine guns firing 200 rpm and 120mm smooth bore main gun, all combined with its speed, all terrain, all weather, day/night offensive capabilities far outweigh the ability of 15,000 ancient troops to attack and destroy it.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (May 14, 2013)

However I'm unsure if an M1 Abrams is just as vulnerable...


----------



## StarHalo (May 14, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> However I'm unsure if an M1 Abrams is just as vulnerable...



You'd have to get close enough to use it; the good news for the English is that Longshanks commissioned the largest and most powerful trebuchet in history, which was the longest-range weapon mankind had at the time - the bad news is that it threw its ~300 lb projectile a total of ...200 yards. That's less effective range than a current combat rifle.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (May 14, 2013)

I can see the 'alien' cloak of invincibility pervading a primitive army's thoughts on 1st contact.

But as soon as the hermits emerge, I wonder if it's all bets are off. 

http://oi41.tinypic.com/25uof9u.jpg






Those machine gun barrels look like they just might bend 

Your images are oversize, when you post an image please remember Rule #3 

Rule #3 If you post an image in your post, please downsize the image to no larger than 800 x 800 pixels.

*Please resize and repost.* - Thanks Norm


----------



## StarHalo (May 15, 2013)

Some of them could sit on the exterior of the tank or wander around during the melee if they felt the urge - English archers are good for maybe ~100 yards, and that's the whole of long-range weaponry for a medieval army (they only brought trebuchets for castle razing,) which is less than 1/15th of a mile..


----------



## Ken_McE (May 15, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


>



They could not focus on those spots because they would have no way of knowing about engines or air inlets or vents. What they could do, if it got stuck, is cover the whole thing with cord wood and make a bonfire.


----------



## Ken_McE (May 15, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> I can see the 'alien' cloak of invincibility pervading a primitive army's thoughts on 1st contact. But as soon as the hermits emerge, I wonder if it's all bets are off.



I agree. If it's just a big monster roaring around and killing people the only way they could think of it is as a monster or devil of some kind. These are supernatural creatures and probably require supernatural responses. They could spend a lot of time screwing around with improvised holy water delivery systems or prayer campaigns...

If it stopped somewhere and a hatch opened and people came out they might begin to understand what they were up against. They did have siege engines and a thing I think they called a "turtle"(?) which was a battering ram under a roof (to keep off arrows) and mounted on wheels (so you could move it) that would be rolled up to a castle and used to pound down gates. Once they knew there were people in it they might realize it was sort of a fancy "turtle"

Once they knew this they could work out that it was subject to some human limitations and work out from that...
_ O.K., so first we...  and then we... and if they...___ _well yeah, but that's what infantry are for... __oo:__oo:__oo:__oo:__oo:__oo:__oo:__oo:__oo:__oo:__oo:__oo:__oo:__oo:__oo:__oo:__oo:__oo:_


----------



## StarHalo (May 15, 2013)

- Modern tank combat doesn't involve charging the tank into the enemy lines, rather it uses the terrain to maximum advantage, with focus on fast mobility and safe distance; our protagonist M1 would be behind a berm in some foliage, where even a trained eye behind binoculars would probably not spot it.

- Medieval people have never seen a fired-projectile weapon, so the English wouldn't know what to look for; modern tanks have minimal muzzle flash/smoke anyway, plus the M1's rounds are supersonic, so you would only get an approach sound after the round arrived (if you were still alive/could still hear), which they would not know to listen for and could not identify - the explosions would literally be occurring out of nowhere with no possible explanation for the army.

- The effective range for the M1's main gun is 2.5 miles; if the army for some reason decided to march briskly directly at the tank (somehow managing the task without leadership, without direction, and without knowing they're approaching what's creating the explosions,) it would take *over one hour* of marching after the first shot to arrive at the tank, which also assumes the tank would remain stationary, and would not fire on the approaching army.


----------



## alpg88 (May 15, 2013)

TEEJ said:


> They need to have a reason to fight, to be a real scenario. Defense of homes, avenge for cheating in a soccer game, etc.


the only reason they would need is an order from their king.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (May 15, 2013)

StarHalo said:


> - Modern tank combat doesn't involve charging the tank into the enemy lines, rather it uses the terrain to maximum advantage, with focus on fast mobility and safe distance; our protagonist M1 would be behind a berm in some foliage, where even a trained eye behind binoculars would probably not spot it.
> 
> - Medieval people have never seen a fired-projectile weapon, so the English wouldn't know what to look for; modern tanks have minimal muzzle flash/smoke anyway, plus the M1's rounds are supersonic, so you would only get an approach sound after the round arrived (if you were still alive/could still hear), which they would not know to listen for and could not identify - the explosions would literally be occurring out of nowhere with no possible explanation for the army.
> 
> - The effective range for the M1's main gun is 2.5 miles; if the army for some reason decided to march briskly directly at the tank (somehow managing the task without leadership, without direction, and without knowing they're approaching what's creating the explosions,) it would take *over one hour* of marching after the first shot to arrive at the tank, which also assumes the tank would remain stationary, and would not fire on the approaching army.



The main gun loader would get pretty fatigued  And their aiming would have to be impeccable at that distance. You have to consider if there's 2.5 miles of clear field with no obstacle surrounding the castle.


----------



## StarHalo (May 16, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> no obstacle surrounding the castle.



There's no castle described in the scenario, which is lucky for the English; the M1 would only have to put a round at the main gate, and everyone would be trapped inside..


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (May 16, 2013)

I reckon it would probably just be dustified and blown out, but what would happen if you stuffed a rock down the front of the main gun? I know, I know, first you have to GET there without being mowed down by the .50 or blown to smithereens, but what if...?


----------



## Kestrel (May 16, 2013)

BTW, anybody interested in this topic should really see the two classic movies, *Zulu* and *Zulu Dawn*, as they cover some of the concepts discussed here.



> *Zulu Dawn* is a 1979 war film about the historical Battle of Isandlwana between British and Zulu forces in 1879 in South Africa.





> _*Zulu*_ is a 1964 historical war film depicting the Battle of Rorke's Drift between the British Army and the Zulus in January 1879, during the Anglo-Zulu War where 150 British soldiers, many of which were sick and wounded as patients at that field hospital, successfully held off an army of 4000 Zulu warriors.



*Zulu Dawn* takes place earlier the same day as *Zulu*, and the two movies together make a good contrast between the two different outcomes of a contest between quantity vs technology.

These two movies are on Netflix, at least when I last saw them.


----------



## StarHalo (May 16, 2013)

bshanahan14rulz said:


> I reckon it would probably just be dustified and blown out, but what would happen if you stuffed a rock down the front of the main gun?



The main gun is smoothbore, so there's nothing for an object to "catch" on; anything that rolls in would roll out just as easily. All the M1's rounds have proximity fuses as far as I know, and they all use projectiles that are much harder than rock, like depleted uranium, so you could perhaps damage the barrel when whatever was blocking it was blown out, but that's about it.

Should also mention: The M1 has an anti-personnel round that features 1,000 tungsten balls, effectively turning the Abrams into the world's largest shotgun. Needless to say, this would be catastrophic against an army whose maneuvering specifically consists of standing out in the open in groups..


----------



## idleprocess (May 16, 2013)

One can envision a number of scenarios and outcomes.

I believe that StarHalo has established the best possible outcome for the tank - first strike *shock and awe* to disorganize the enemy and terrify the survivors. In lesser variants of this, the tank is seen and recognized by the enemy, but it still distant and inflicts such horrific casualties that the net effect is the same - the enemy scatters and loses the will to fight. 

Tweak the variables to the point that the infantry is within a few hundred yards and it gets a bit dicier. While the M1 has significant advantages - massive destructive power, excellent instruments, smoke generators, remote-operated secondary weapons, and amazing speed - it would be a roll of the dice at closer ranges where flanking and getting in close is a possibillity. Tank could run over everything in its way to pull away from the army, but they would learn something of it and with proximity some of the fear would subside. The "infinite ammunition and fuel" hand-wave would come in handy here since the tank would spend days circling the army raining fire down upon them in a cat-and-most game with sappers, combat engineers, and infiltrators. The tank might eventually destroy the army as a fighting force, might roll into a trap, or the crew might get unlucky and catch a hail of arrows to the abdomen during a break in the action taking a breather outside of the vehicle.

Turn it into a scrum - tank suddenly appears within 100 yards of the enemy (presumably full of **** and vinegar), and I would not bet on the tank crew. They will inflict mass casualties, but the enemy will be able to observe is movements, tactics, and capabilities. The cloak of invincibility would not long last once it had been observed up close, its lack of total omniscience noted, and how its weapons worked observed for some time. Full of blood lust to avenge their fallen comrades, the army will eventually immobilize and disable it, at which point the crew will claim their last few victims with sidearms and grenades before ultimately succumbing to the massive fire that would likely be set around the tank's immobilized hulk.



With the right gaming software, one could test this scenario ... a friend of mine used to use a WW2 gaming app with modest AI to answer the age-old question _how many Shermans does it take to defeat a Tiger I?_ I recall that "ten" was the usual answer.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (May 16, 2013)

^^^ Superb assessment above. Great post.

I wonder what the odds would be like if it was 2 WWII era German Panzer tanks instead of the single Abrams.


----------



## nbp (May 16, 2013)

It just occured to me that the scenario should be tweaked somehow because it's set up in favor of the tank, namely that it gets unlimited resources. Aside from the obvious REAL advantages it has, it also gets the impossible advantage of limitless fuel and ammo. If the tank gets unlimited fuel and ammo (a totally unrealistic situation) should not the army get some sort of imagined advantage too in the scenario? Or else the tank should recieve only what a tank can actually reasonable carry/tow behind. Otherwise you are adding a variable that could not really be tested in real life.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (May 16, 2013)

15,000 men is a pretty big advantage 

Maybe it is unfair given modern firepower.

The WWII era German Panzer tanks have a much bigger handicap that could be conceivably exploited by a primitive army.


----------



## StarHalo (May 16, 2013)

nbp said:


> If the tank gets unlimited fuel and ammo (a totally unrealistic situation) should not the army get some sort of imagined advantage too in the scenario? Or else the tank should recieve only what a tank can actually reasonable carry/tow behind.



In my scenario, the tank needs only about a half dozen rounds and maybe a jerry can of gas; half the crew is kicking back reading Marine Times and trading Charms flavors anyway..

And I don't think the situation improves for the English just by putting the tank within a furlong, as the tank's size and mobility comes into play. Again, "long-range" in medieval times was the effective range of the archers (who pose no threat whatsoever to the tank), ~100 yards. So the tank needs only a ~150 yard buffer, an ideal distance to bring the .50 cal into play, and it will never be touched. The bigger threat is the cavalry, since the horses are the fastest-moving element of the army (and speaking of instilling terror in the enemy, I think the army would definitely lose their will upon seeing and entire group of horses flattened like dough by an object that was moving faster than they were); I don't think the horses would be effective after the first round as they would spook and run amok. A well-trained horse can ignore a gunshot, but these horses have never heard anything louder than thunder, a 120mm round explosion would leave very few of them manageable. 

And don't forget the M1's smoke bombs; the army sees the tank plainly, then thick, black smoke erupts everywhere in front of it, and when the smoke clears, the house-size object has vanished. What sorcery is this?! Warlocks!

One other rub for the "if somebody makes it to the tank" scenario - reactive armor. I don't know what happens if you manage to cleave a well-swung glaive into explosive side armor, but I don't want to be the guy who finds out..


----------



## moldyoldy (May 17, 2013)

Perhaps a comparison was the Battle for Falludscha - armour vs dismounted enemy. The Americans were fed up with the harassing fire in the city, so they went in with serious force: First wave was M1s, followed by M2s (Bradleys), followed by dismounted Combined Arms infantry. The bad guys had no chance, although they did try to fight. The basic scenario was if any incoming fire was received from any location, a HEAT round was the response. ie: some guy jumps out from the corner of a building, fires an RPG7 and ducks back. The HEAT round response takes out the entire corner of the building. not much chance there. Any roof was not safe due to the various A/C gun-ships waiting for a sighting or request. Hence "RPG sacks" were very few and ineffective. The Combined Arms troops captured a number of enemy who were seriously disoriented and bleeding from ears/eyes/mouth. According to a the captured combatants, they tried run up to an M1 to toss satchel charges under the overhang of the turret in back, but the M1s were firing their 120mm guns so often that no one could get close to a tank w/o being out in the open more or less in front of the M1 when the main gun fired. The overpressure was more than debilitating, it outright killed some of the enemy. In the end, the Americans settled the matter by nearly destroying the city with 120mm HEAT or 25mm chain-gun rounds. The point for this thread is that firing the M1s main gun once would take out all enemy combatants near the tank.

Ref the .50 cal "suppression fires": In Iraq, two of the Iraqi dictators' sons were cornered in a palace and putting up serious resistance. After 3 HELLFIRE missiles fired from various A/C did not stop the battle, the troops resorted to the old reliable - 0.50 cal machine guns. They rolled up a couple Hummers with a .50 cal on the top, a full load of armour piercing rounds, and proceeded to methodically walk their rounds thru every level and corner of the palace. after about 1/2 hour of this, there was no more "discussion".. That was probably cheaper than the 3 HELLFIRE missiles.

FWIW, even being out in the open near to a 155mm M109A6 with a high Zone charge (ie Zone 7) is bad news. But the 120mm gun fires with higher bore pressure. The "powder bunnies" may fire the 155mm with an open hatch/back in the M109A6.


----------



## gadget_lover (May 17, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> Objective is last man standing
> 
> Also, lets say the Tank was in Falkirk.



The last man standing will be British. After all, the only things that are infinite are the fuel and ammo.

So you have 4 men with unlimited fuel and ammo. They will scare the hell out of the natives. Most of them will run away early in the battle. The battle is over quickly but the war is not won. Score would be something like: 4 in the tank. A few thousand dead and a few thousand more who fled and a few hundred thousand civilians in the surrounding area. 

Note that those that fled are still standing. 

When the battle is over the 4 men will need food, latrines, etc. They will eventually seek company. Even if they are the best armed men in the known world they have to sleep. Poisons and daggers have felled many invaders. 

It may take a long time, but eventually the invaders will assimilate into the local culture or they will be picked off by the locals.

Daniel


----------



## KC2IXE (May 17, 2013)

One thing I find interesting on this is no one mentioned mobility. A horse, even without battle gear, and NOT charging has a range of between 20 and 30 miles a day. Even the Pony express, with multiple horses etc only did 75 miles a day. What is the overland SPEED of the M1? Off road, it is spec'd at 25 MPH. It's BIG thing is it can be striking behind the lines at the logistics support of the Army LONG before ANYONE knew it was coming. It takes off from location X, and 4 hours later is 100 miles away. Even if you are following it's tracks, they are 25 MILES in front of where you can even tell folks the NEXT DAY. They can stop, rest, etc. OK - so they want some buffer - they run 5 hours, then HIDE. The trick for the tank is going to be "swoop in, do MASSIVE damage, then RUN before they can organize those 15K troops against you" - you take out the food storage (castles, markets etc), and that 15K folks starve in the field

Of course, in the long run, they still lose, as the can't govern


----------



## gadget_lover (May 17, 2013)

How fast can an M-1 safely drive in an area with no improved roads? Driving a 4x4 across a rocky plain is a pain, I have no idea how it would be in a tank.

How well do they get out of a 10 foot drop that a stream cut across a meadow? I imagine that they would not be disabled by such a simple impact at 20 or 30 MPH, but that's a lot of impact.

I think back to the hassle of getting grandpa's tractor out of the creek bed when we took it for a joy ride. 

Daniel


----------



## KC2IXE (May 18, 2013)

That 25 mph is it's rated OFF ROAD speed - it's about double that on improved surfaces. I know the M1 was designed to be one of the faster tanks out there


----------



## Cypher_Aod (May 18, 2013)

You guys seem to have some severe misunderstandings as to the nature of the English Countryside and the way in which large-scale medieval warfare was typically conducted.

The English countryside (which I am observing right now and have been for three hundred miles), for the very vast majority, is almost completely comprised of flat fields and meadows, and even three hundred years ago there were very large swathes of land which were flat fields as opposed to forests, these fields would have presented ideal tank-traversal areas. Additionally, as a result of the Roman occupation of England further back in history, there are well-established "roads" (for the purposes of tank-travel, we'll call them routes) that go through or around the forests in routes which are still considered to be extremely efficient for long-distance and high-speed travel. You might take note that the current motorways (British Highways) follow these routes almost exactly.

Additionally, with the exception of the specifically hilly-parts of the UK, those areas that are hilly are still relatively flat for the purposes of a modern MBT, in fact, current UK Military training using the UKs Challenger2 tank is still performed in the more "tactically unpleasant" areas of the british countryside, where I'm told that the Challenger2 copes extremely well. I believe that the M1A2 Abrams performs quite respectably compared to the more modern Challenger.

Lastly, Medieval warfare on the scale posited by the scenario never _ever_ took place in Woods or forests, battles were specifically and purposefully arranged in wide, open meadows or fields which were often flanked by very gentle hills which housed the Archers and army leadership. In this instance, I would concur with the assesment that a surgical strike by the M1A2 at a range of 1 Mile or so to eliminate the armies leadership, followed by annihilating any targets of opportunity would soon leave the army reduced to a rabble of disoriented and disorganized men who would be easy pickings for the Tank.

I expect that the entirety of the army could be wiped out, given the theorized starting locations of the Tank and the Army, in less than two days.


----------



## moldyoldy (May 18, 2013)

If your proposed conditions for King Edward I of England (1239-1307), better known as "Edward Longschanks" or "Hammer of the Scots" could be relieved slightly in time to 1457, then the huge cannon "Mons Meg" came in to military usage. Mons Meg terrorized kings and castles whereever it was towed and fired. 

Mons Meg could fire a 150KG gunstone some 2 miles - not a trivial feat for it's day. As I looked down it's gaping bore a few days ago at the Edinburgh Castle, I reflected on the effect a projectile of that size would have on any fortification. Now after reading a bit in this thread, I wonder about the damage a gunstone of that size/velocity would cause on an M1 Abrams. Certainly no armour penetration, but it would easily cause serious damage to just about anything that protruded from the M1, save for the main barrel, and that includes all sighting devices and the .50 cal barrels. Not sure what reactive armour could do to something of that size/weight.

FWIW, direct fire from a 155mm howitzer was a classified test for the Marines some years back, not the usual indirect OTH fire mode. That direct fire testing of 155mm howitzer projectiles was very successful and continues on the artillery practice ranges. Being broadsided by a 155mm projectile of ~43KG at ~600-800 m/s would be rather debilitating to about any tank or armoured vehicle. Sort of the same as being hit by that 150KG stone from Mons Meg.


----------



## TEEJ (May 18, 2013)

I thought about it for some reason, and decided that if the tactics of the tank crew involved long range annihilation of the army, they would win, and their shot loads, and general rapid firepower would take out massive man power at a time - and if they methodically mopped up the army all in one sweep, so that the army would not have time to study and react to the tank tactically, they should be able to defeat a massed army in a day.

IE: They could rapidly circle the army while firing into their ranks, the way a gunship does now a days....increasing/decreasing radius as appropriate to maintain position, so as to continuously outflank them.

The logistics of countering would require time and communications that would not have been present in a centralized top-down army of the time. 

If they were not swift and thorough, over time, the army would have a chance to regroup, work out who does what where, and counter. 

But a disciplined enough medieval army, trained to stand and fight en masse, would have been a densely packed target rich environment....and unless ordered to scatter, they probably would have stood shoulder to shoulder and fought to the end. If less disciplined, they would scatter and run for their lives. Convention of the times would then have them put to death by their own side, if any one was left to prosecute them, etc.




PS - It would be a VERY lucky shot for a Mons Meg to hit something the size of a tank, going 45 mph or so. I WOULD like to see what happens when a ~ 330 lb ROCK hits something at ~ 400 feet per minute or so.



Of course, the tank could take out the cannon's crew and probably the cannon itself in one shot.


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 30, 2013)

Russian T-72 firing a HEAT round [image is roughly half speed, actual speed/footage is here]


----------



## moldyoldy (Oct 31, 2013)

FWIW, I used to work with an engineer who previously had worked on the 120mm projectile design of the M1. His comment? "If you see an M1 fire at you, you have just about enough time to bend down and kiss your *ss goodby." Distance condition? none really. If you are close enough to be able to ascertain that the barrel angle is pointed at you, it is almost too late to duck. The M1 tankers stated that the live rounds were noticeably more accurate than the practice rounds! 

That was similar to the M60s with their Shillelagh missiles (MGM-51) where the M60 tankers in Germany told me while we ate breakfast together that they could "thread" their missiles on to any open hatch or vulnerable spot on the Soviet tanks.


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 31, 2013)

moldyoldy said:


> "If you see an M1 fire at you, you have just about enough time to bend down and kiss your *ss goodby." Distance condition? none really.



The pictured HEAT round travels at just over half a mile per second, or roughly Mach 2.5


----------

