Which one would win?
>5 000 Renault FT's or
>1 M1 Abrams
Infinite ammo and fuel, battlefield is several square km's
Wouldn't even need the 120mm. Just use the shell racks for extra .50 barrels.
The best offense for the renault would literally be to somehow surround and then try to crush the abrams through weight.
>>29484013
>Ze american héavy tank iz le coming through
>"sacrebleu Pierre ! let's chaaaaaaaaarge !"
[sound of thousands of tracks running in muddy terrain intensifies]
>the américan char de combat iz killing dozens of FT-17 by rolling over them
>le french general orders his men to open the cleverly hidden cheese-shot reserves
>Every FT-17 shoots a Special Purpose Round - Organic Tracer Cheese HESH (aka "S.P.R.O.T.C.H")
>5000 stinky projectiles land on the Abrams
>The M1 is now an enormous mound of cheese rolling around the battleground
>soon enough, despite the pressurised NRBC cabin, the M1 crew found themselves suffocating.
>Even spraying diet coke inside the hull doesn't seem to make the stench go away
>they are forced to get out of their litteral rolling cheese cake and are captured by mustached french tankers
>as the americans are handcuffed, the Abrams itselfs turns to cheese under the influence of superior french organic chemistry
>ten thousand frenchmen proceed to dismantle the M1 with their own bare teeth, munching through the Abrams while occasionally emptying a glass of wine
>such is life in the trenches.
>>29484013
That's like saying who would win.
1000 toddlers or 1 steam roller?
Your thread is shit, and you should feel bad.
>>29484013
>>29484045
Does the Abrams even keep 5000 rounds of .50 on it?
>>29485636
Never change /k/
>>29485636
Someone cap pls.
>>29486187
>>29486208
>>29486246
Inb4 reddit
>>29484013
here is a better question op
threads like this make me feel uneasy. that tank is 100 years older then the Abrams and we are wondering if 5000 of them could destroy a Abrams.
Just imagine if aliens invaded and they were only 100 years more advanced then us. It would take 5000 Abrams to maybe destroy one space tank.
>>29485636
you're a faggot
>>29486584
But you're forgetting they're coming from so far away they wouldn't be 100 years ahead, more like 10,000 years. MAYBE we could spot them on our biggest telescopes before were all dead.
>>29484013
I wish i had the 1 Trillion Lions vs 1 Sun picture from the last thread, thanks for the repost thread OP.
>>29484045
Or just hit them and try not to throw track.
>>29484065
A tractor that has a 100th the power, and lacks the clearance to climb up 4ft of hull would have a problem doing just that.
>>29486180
Combat load is in the ballpark of a 1000 but extra ammo is typically stored elsewhere around the tank.
If there was an ammo and fuel drop the Abrams would win hands down. A properly boresited .50 cal would peg the enemy at what, the maximum distance of its own gun? Thread is dumb.
>>29486490
Richard Nixon forced North Vietnam to the negotiation table.
Something which was thought to be impossible since North Vietnam didn't want to negotiate with anyone.
The US has pellet ammunition for their tanks iirc.
Tungsten pellets will go right through the Renault, like a shotgun and a chicken.
Probably more effective than HE since it has a much wider arc
>>29486715
hey, good to see you again.
does the abrams field HE main gun rounds?
the sabot and other AP would just go through one end of the FT17 and out the other, right?
>>29486744
Just use this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgn1nhUEgo8
>>29486758
I don't think that's fielded, based off the X designation.
>>29486758
Canister shot was basically the first WMD. Napoleon loved the stuff.
>>29484013
>tanks that are less armored than a dictators car
>vs a modern impregneable forteress on treads, whose GPMG would even penetrate the renaults
>>29484013
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the sheer weight of fire from 5000 37mm cannons firing ten rounds a minute rapidly render the M1 immobile and fuck up any optics?
>>29486744
>does the abrams field HE main gun rounds?
M830 and M830A1 HEAT/MPAT rounds. They are dual purpose and don't carry as much explosive as other nation's shells.
>the sabot and other AP would just go through one end of the FT17 and out the other, right?
Pic related. It would do that several times.
>>29486801
that's assuming they're all firing synchronized.
more than likely a few fts would fire at a time and get picked off, over and over
>>29486763
its in active service all over the Army.
>>29486808
>that ruski turret pop
makes me laugh every time I see it.
How many FTs in a row could the APFSDS round penetrate?
>>29486808
how cramped is it inside of an abrams, anyway?
i've heard that either they suck ass or they're pretty good, and all the training shit i've seen is somewhat inconclusive.
>>29486829
its impossible to say. But if a M829A1 or A2 can penetrate two T72s, 4 FT's would be light work. But you have to account for the kind of accuracy speed and penetration variables that are going wild in this hypothetical situation. For instance, weather its a clean slice through two .8 inch plates of armor, or going through the engine and entirety of the tank. Also, deflection. Even if it did happen you can't expect to get a lot of tanks that way, it would be a rarity to get even 2.
>>29486810
Its like shooting AR500 with .22. Even in massive numbers the overall affect is relatively nil. If the FT's did have the 37mm gun, it only lobs a shell that flys at 600 meters per second or show, it would have a hard time even penetrating the first layer of armor. Not to mention the gunner's optic is only 1x magnification.
>>29486740
It technically would be, but only at close ranges as even with it being a 120mm shell, its hardly more deadly then a upscaled 12ga. The maximum lethal range is only 700m. For it to be lethal for an enemy FT you would need to be inside the range of its gun. A smart crew would stay outside the range of them at all costs.
>>29486875
>how cramped is it inside of an abrams, anyway?
You have enough room to work, and sleep very uncomfortably. That's it. Googling the inside pics of the tank does good justice on your question.
>i've heard that either they suck ass or they're pretty good, and all the training shit i've seen is somewhat inconclusive.
What, Abrams crews? It depends. The average tank has a SGT and SSG with years of experience on it. Its the job of the SGT - Gunner to bring the rest of the crew to a competent level, beyond their basic training. Sometimes gunners and tank commanders suck, yes.
HE is the only thing needed
There's barely any metal to penetrate and HE is a sure way to get the French crew killed
>>29486969
But it only holds 42 rounds of 120mm.
SLAP-T on the other hand is probably the most effective thing anyone can use in this situation. Or even basic black tipped .50cal. But the original argument is retarded cause in no situation is there enough ammo to kill 5000 tanks.
>>29487006
OP said that all tanks involved would have infinite ammo and fuel.
>>29487014
And apparently several square kilometers. Which is abhorringly small, even the Renault can shoot across the whole field almost. The M1 would have to keep moving and shooting and hope the can kill the enemy before they close in and cut them off.
>>29484013
You would be retarded to think attrition wouldn't just kill the abrams.
>>29486875
I used to think they weren't very cramped, spoke to a former Col who was a battalion commander for Tanks, he loved the M60's compared to the Abrams which was very cramped.
>>29486490
We killed over a million Vietmanese so which 100 were you referring to?
>>29487140
>attrition
Please tell me how a low velocity Puteaux is going to cause any damage at all.
>>29487564
Those peasants dindu nuffin. They were good boys, just needed more rice for dem programs etc.
>>29487140
> 3km is about 1.5km long
Wat?
>>29487654
I think the diagram isn't the same scale as the ranges he made so that he could include the range of the 256.
>>29487658
I see.
Go on.
>>29484013
if the renaults are armed with 37mm guns they could bombard the Abrams trying to destroy the optics and tracks, without optics aiming the gun is more than a bit difficult & with tracks destroyed the Abrams couldn't dictate the distance from which it engages the swarm of FTs, so while the FTs couldn't destroy the Abrams, they might very well be able to keep pounding it with 37mm HE until the crew inside the Abrams loses their shit and does something stupid.
>>29487140
Ft-17 won't cause any damage unless extremely lucky shot after getting hit a few hundred times. (not going to happen)
With infinite ammo and fuel the Abrams can easily circle around at full speed while popping all the Renaults.
How are they ever going to hit a tank that's going 50 km/h non stop?
>>29487731
Abrams can move around and freely aim thanks to stabilizers.
They won't be able to hit a moving target.
Also how are they going to bombard the Abrams when the Renault has shit visibility and no radio.
They won't be able to coordinate properly.
>>29486490
"The whole United States Army"
>Pics of Navy and Air Force
gj m8
>>29487564
the guerrilla hit and run ones i'd imagine
those who fucked you about as hard as the taliban or iraqi insurgency
but guess you never learn murica
Redpill me on the Leopard 2, guys.
>>29486727
>>29487564
>burgers getting defensive over a meme image
>>29487731
Or on the other hand, their tiny low velocity 37mm guns won't touch the tracks and they'll all shit themselves when a practically invincible tank with a machine gun that chews through them like hot butter kills half of their friends.
>>29487793
Not much to say, they haven't seen much combat. Developed similarily to the M1 abrams, somewhat derived from MBT-70 and the Leopard 1, heavily armored, the latter variants A5+ don't give the driver much hatch room IMO. The original L44 cannon isn't as potent as the Abrams M256 120mm, even though its a licensed build, the M256 can withstand higher pressure loads and the DU ammunition is better than the L44's Tungsten sabot. Good diesel engines. The newer L55 120mm guns makes up from its deficiency that it has compared with the M256, as it gets higher muzzle velocity.
I know the armor composition is different but I don't really know enough to describe it, but its protection standards are that of modern NATO MBTs. Its only real deficiency IMO is that some ammunition is stored in the chassis, and this is a pretty marginal flaw given its doctrine, which is to be hull down, kill a few T-72s and retreat further to rinse and repeat.
>>29487860
The Abrams tracks could probably take a lot of hits from those 37 mm cannons too provided ww1 load.
Those tracks are a lot thicker than pretty much any ww1 armour
>>29486875
It's pretty comfy inside and I'm a tall mofo
>>29488052
>abrams get burriend under endless amount of shells from the renaults
>get stuck and can't move
>french victory
>>29485636
glorious
would that result in diet coke-flavored cheese.
>>29486490
DELETE THIS NOW
>>29488096
>Abrams is just driving and using stabilizer to aim
>nothing hits Abrams
>>29488162
Sounds incredibly tiring for the crew.
>>29485636
When this gets put on r/4chan, please include me in the screenshot
kthxbai
>>29486490
>a few hundred
>we killed hundreds of thousands and regularly clashed with the NVA
Nice try, but no.
>>29488154
'muricans be mad top kek
>>29488205
true the NVA took a beating every time they openly met the us
but in the end they won through guerrilla warfare
>>29486758
>people have been on the receiving end of that
FUARK
>>29488225
In the end they one because the next President did not want to honer our agreement with SV that if the NVA broke the cease fire we would go back.
Reminder, it's 5000 Renault's. That's a lot of fucking tanks. Even if the hit accuracy they deal is 5% that's a lot of fucking hits for FIVE THOUSAND tanks.
>>29487744
The problem with that is that the Renault's can put a tank every 100 meters from each other in every point of the map. They would just surround the M1
>>29485636
>>29488710
Oh no, not a bunch of small, low velocity shells hitting our absurdly thick armor!
>>29486715
>>29488822
the optics of the driver and gunner would get rekt pretty fast i'd imagine and then what stick your head out while thousands of tanks are firin at you ?
>>29488724
See OP
>Infinite ammo and fuel
The Abrams can just keep driving.
Handcranked turrets with no visibility won't hit a moving object
Meanwhile the Abrams can just aim while it's shooting.
It can also ram them and they're gone.
The fiddie will also make swiss cheese out the FT-17.
>Surround M1
>M1 drives away
lol
>>29488710
>5%
Not even that.
The effective range of that 37mm is also appalling
>>29489018
How do they aim for the optics?
The M1 isn't stationairy
>>29485636
>diet coke
Made me chuckle, include me in screencap aswell
>>29484013
wouldnt even have to fire the main gun on the Abrams. just use the 50
>>29484013
Assuming all that, the Abrams is going to do all sorts of nasty thing to them, but given enough lives lost they could close in and get some shots into the engine eventually.
>>29484013
There's a good chance they could pen the Renaults with .50 cal.
>>29489335
>>29488724
see
>>29489022
No semi-intelligent Abrams commander is going to stay stationary or let the tank get surrounded, they can simply keep moving/firing and easily outrun the FT's, assuming the abrams isn't already surrounded. (5mph top speed vs 45mph... lol)
the only way I see the renaults winning is the M1 somehow starting out in the center of a massive cone-shaped crater with 100% grade and the FT's kamikaze rushing the M1 and piling on top of it, eventually killing the crew insidie by either crushing the hull by sheer weight or starving them over time by being trapped
But that's a completely absurd/unlikely scenario offering a huge handicap and op did not specify the initial relative positions/formations of said tanks or the geographics/shape of the battlefield.
>>29489486
pretty much for the renaults to win they need a massive handicap with a completely absurd, unrealistic miracle of a scenario, something like completely favorable land geography, or landing an extremely lucky shot straight down the barrel of the abrams right as it happens to be firing an HE round causing an internal detonation or jam.. but I'm not even sure if that would work, those rounds might have a set time delay on becoming primed and as far as physics I'm sure the sheer kinetic force/inertia of it's 120mm shells would force any puny 37mm out of its way
>>29484013
You're gonna need something bigger than the 37 pencil gun.
This would be more interesting if you specified the exact composition of the Renaults as well as the model of M1 in question, since this makes a rather large world of difference.
Now lets talk about the truly interesting Battle
So /k/
who would win?
>>29489765
are the Silverbacks CONGO-level? if yes the Marines stand absolute no chance.
if not, they might if they can down the gorillas fast enough at a good distance, but even then
its probably a slim chance
>>29489818
The Gorrillas are very very butthurt and noise will not make them run away, they're so angry that they just want to rip off human limbs
also some are throwing feces at marine positions.
They also come from all directions.
>>29489869
even if they Gorillas aren't CONGO level, they probably will tear the Marines apart.
>>29489765
each marine would have to kill 1200 gorillas
that means probably 3 rounds of 556 each, sometimes more sometimes less, but when you shoot something you shoot it 3 times to ensure it is dead
thats 3600 rounds of ammo per marine
the rifles might overheat from that, also the gorillas coming from all sides makes it harder, probably the gorillas
>>29489966
But shouldn't they also have some M203s, hand grenades, and possibly a few mortars to thin the herd at a distance?
>>29487789
You mean the VC that got wrecked even worse than the NVA?
Real life wasn't the movies bud.
>>29489486
Maybe you didn't read my comment, there's 5000 Renault's. In no situation is there enough time to engage, and evade that many vehicles. They could literally come on line across the map and be stacked 5-10 deep and encroach on their position. I don't think you know how big 5000 is.
>>29489486
Limited engagement area, so no, he could get boxed in pretty easily.
>>29489022
>How do they aim for the optics?
>The M1 isn't stationairy
They don't have to. 5,000 FT's can pump out half a million rounds in ten minuites - remember opie specified "unlimited ammo". Even if 99% of their shot's miss, the M1 is still going to get hit about a thousand times every sixty seconds. With that amount of shots on taget, there won't be any exposed part of the M1 that hasn't neen hit multiple times.
>>29484013
>>29490179
But ft-17s have shit visibility.
They can't see the Abrams if there are 2-3 other FTs in front of them. Even if there's one FT in front of one they won't be able to see shit.
Besides, 5000 Fts means that at any given time at least half of them are far outside their effective firing range.
You aren't considering the firing range of such a low velocity cannon, you aren't considering the visibility (lack of visibility).
And if it's hitting armour it's not going to do the Abrams anything
During WW2 a Char B1 got hit 140 times by Panzer 3s and Panzer 4s with much better 37/short 75mm cannons and safely returned.
The armor of the abrams is at the very least 20 times as strong as the B1, the Ft17 cannon is also at least 3 times as weak as the 37mm of the Panzer 3.
So I'm certain the Abrams will be able to take thousands of hits
I'm also pretty sure the optics of any MBT are designed to be able to take at least a bunch of Fiddie hits.
And a fiddie penetrates better than a Ft17 with ww1 ammunition.
>>29490278
I know how to take out an Abrams from the outside, with just a pellet gun.
>>29489000
the most asinine thing i've seen on /k/ in quite some time
>>29489765
might as well make it 120 000 marines with artillery and airsupport vs 100 moderately angry orangutans i'm sure the marines will still manage to lose
>>29489997
we're beein delusional gain are we?
but i guess you can't argue with 'muricans about vietnam
>nuuh we din not lose twas duh politicians an duh south vietnamuse we kicked dem gooks ass
>>29487787
Kek, the redcoats would win of course.
If redcoats can slaughter charging Zulu warriors in Africa, then they can slaughter charging Zulu warriors in Alabama.
>>29490769
kek you got me there m8
>>29490113
I don't think you realize how slow 5mph is compared to 45mph. It's like someone running vs a car driving down the road. Pretty sure you didn't read my comment.
Unless the m1 is completely surrounded, it has ample time to escape. OP did not specify the positions of the tanks. Even if there was a massive line of tanks, the abrams can simply flip a U or just continiously move in reverse to stay out of range if it is in range, and then pick them off from a distance. with the massive speed advantage the abrams has there's no way enemy tanks would get anywhere near it on a realistic terrain.
>>29486180
WW1 tanks were vunerable to regular machineguns as well, at any but frontal arc. Steel for armor wasn't great and nonpenetrating hits were notorious for producing spalling.
Tank Ragnarok: the thread
>>29490844
>Unless the m1 is completely surrounded
For 5000 tanks that can close the distance in under 20 minutes that's not hard. The Abrams can only average a kill every 7 seconds, and that's not factoring in the 5-6 minutes to transfer the 18 semi ready rack rounds, or the 6 hull stored ammo that's a pain in the ass to get to.
>"Well you can just use the .50cal to suppress them"
Transferring ammo is a 2 person job.
>"the driver can just drive away"
And turn that 6 min job into a 10 min job.
On the note of the .50 it only holds 200 rounds before also needing to be reloaded. Totally exposing the loader or TC. Also a single 37mm could render it inoperable.
Even if they laid waste to a hundred tanks, the target acquisition time would go up trying to distinguish from dead, and live tanks.
I don't think you know how tanks work.
>>29484013
An Abrams could take one out with just their m2 machine gun
>>29491594
>close the distance
again, m1 would only have to move every so often to avoid anything getting anywhere close. if the abrams is out of range, once reaching top speed the abrams can go 2 miles (still well within firing tanks) in 2mins 40 seconds. it would take the renaults 21mins to catch up and be in range again. not that that matters, even if they managed to score a hit nothing will penetrate.
>target acquisition time would go up trying to distinguish from dead, and live tanks
it's totally easy to distinguish live from dead, m1 is on defensive. which means it should always be on the move and the renaults would have to constantly try to chase it to stay within range to avoid the m1 picking them off from a distance. whatever moves is live, whatever is isn't or it burning/smoking is dead. obviously you've never seen a tank destroyed. those things burn and smoke like mad after being hit.
btw I'm not sure why you're talking about ammo storage, op said infinite ammo. so it should be assumed right after firing the most convenient shell in reach that just got reloaded magically replaced itself, and that the 50 has an endless link of rounds, or if a reload is necessary the .50 cans magically replace themselves in the same fashion
>>29489000
That's so fucking stupid but I can't stop laughing.
>>29490646
Except we actually did kick gook ass in almost all military engagements.
>>29489000
I mean, that's a lot of lions.
>>29484013
Who would win?
1 billion iguanas or 1 Iowa-class Battleship?
>>29493243
and still lost pathetically
>>29493265
so is the iowa bombarding a island full of iguanas?
does the iowa have infinite ammo/fuel?
>>29489000
The sun would win, handily. That's not enough lions to even reach hydrostatic equilibrium, let alone cause any real dent in the sun. It would make a decent asteroid, though, we're only around 2 orders of magnitude from the mass of the Chicxulub impactor, so we're talking about a serious city-destroying asteroid, although not K-Pg event levels of destruction.
>>29491897
>again, m1 would only have to move every so often
In 9sq km of battlespere? Good luck not getting hit. This isnt nazi zombies where you train the enemy behind you. They will cut you off. /argument
>once reaching top speed the abrams can go 2 miles (still well within firing tanks) in 2mins 40 second
That doesnt help when there are 5000 tanks
>it would take the renaults 21mins to catch up
No it wouldnt, sooner. You can't cutnoff an enemy that occupies the whole playing field
>even if they managed to score a hit nothing will penetrate.
Kill does not always equal penetration, your argument here is extremely underwhelming.
>it's totally easy to distinguish live from dead,
Repeating a previous statment that was wrong doesnt make you right. You are still wrong. Dead tanks can still look 100% serviceable, stop using hollywood fornyour argument source, tanks dont aluminum foil themselves whenever they die unless the ammo goes off.
>m1 is on defensive.
So basically i was still right, the renaults will close the distance. Thanlsbfor backing me up.
>which means it should always be on the move
>defensive
Nigger what
>and the renaults would have to constantly try to chase it
Unless you know, there were 5000 of them or something
>whatever moves is live, whatever is isn't or it burning/smoking is dead.
See 4 replies ago
>obviously you've never seen a tank destroyed
I think my trip will speak for itself. I have demonstrated my understanding of EVERYTHING more than you already in this thread though. But whatever
>those things burn and smoke like mad after being hit.
Wow that's not true at all. Particularly for a Renault. Do you have any idea what a APFSDS would do to a Renault? Hint: it wouldn't explode on contact.
>your post
Blablabla
>>29493548
Inb4 shitty grammar
>mobile
>>29491897
>magically anything
Then what the fucjlk is the point of this thread if you just move all the goalposts on the field
>>29490769
Zozzle
>>29486758
>>29493696
>backscratch
Ahh fuck this hit the funny spot
>>29485636
This has Reddit written all over it.
>>29488252
>one
>honer
Jesus
>>29493548
You dumbfuck, Renaults would be smashed easily by an Abrams moving at 45 mph, so even if the extremely slow line (that most certainly would not occupy the entirety of 9sqkm) could catch up then nothing would happen.
I would call bullshit on your "credentials", but I can tell you're a high school dropout, welfare queen tank driver by the fact you don't seem to understand anything about speed or objects in motion.
>>29485636
cringed
>>29486584
Fuck.
>>29495430
I could also resort to name calling but I will let you stew in your infinitely perpetual fallacy that the Abrams is undeadable. Any operator/maintainer is going to state the sameshit, but I guess we are wrong.
>>29495430
Secondly 45mph is hard surface speed, and it takes time to get to that speed anyway. Thirdly the gun isn't accurate at the implied ranges you are talking about at literally almost any speed.
>>29496816
>>29486584
>>29486687
What if they're shit ass space tanks made with space aluminum and have shitty 75mm guns or something because the densest materials on their planet is comparable to wood?
>>29486187
>>29486208
>>29486612
>>29488137
>>29488202
>>29488739
>>29489221
>>29493831
>>29495527
Don't you think being cheesy was part of the plan ?
>>29489000
Oh god so many tears of joy from laughing, thank you,
>>29490213
but das spagati not lasagans
>>29499056
don't be a rcist shit lord its trans lasagans
