2 Abrams tanks vs. 10,000 Chinese cavalrymen: Who would win?

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: crystal

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: crystal

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: crystal
10000 would win easily. Who said anything those 10000 guys will charge the tanks head on? Their weight/armor will be their down fall. Just digs a few deep traps and those tanks are dead in the sand. Once the tanks are stuck, you can burn them, drown them or buried them. Nothing they can do really.

Because obviously the tank crew can't see the pits. Nor can machine guns not go out a football field or two in range. Nor can the main gun shoot more than 4,000 ft. Other versions of the standard HEAT can fragment and have a bit less range. The most anti-personel weapon is this.

The new M1028 120 mm anti-personnel canister cartridge has been brought into service early for use in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It contains 1,150 ten-millimeter tungsten shot projectiles which spread from the muzzle to produce a shotgun effect lethal out to 500 m. The tungsten balls can be used to clear enemy dismounts, break up hasty ambush sites in urban areas, clear defiles, stop infantry attacks and counter-attacks and support friendly infantry assaults by providing cover-by-fire.

1,500ft, or over a quarter mile. Within that range can mow down hundreds of troops per shot. Outside of that it can still use it's other rounds. Inside of that it can use the machine guns located all around.

Essentially, the tank can be extremely lethal at all ranges. Avoiding tank traps would be easy in open ground.

Man, you think people are so stupid as to create a trap and not cover it up. You see that those men & horses - they could ride over a perfectly looking ground but the tank would fall right through. Like I said, their weight and all those armors work against them.

Again, why would they even move? Unlimited ammo? Is a regular cavalry weapon good out to a quarter mile plus?

If they did move, they could even just have somebody walk out in front, since nobody would get near them within a quarter mile.

A tank trap big enough to snare one will have to be pretty well disguised. Not to mention it'll have to be built a long way out since thermal sites could pick out what's going on for miles.

You don't need to used small fire arm to kill the tank - just need to take out the tank operators when they get out for fresh air or taking a sh*t. Could they hold up in their for a however long since they are only mortal unlike the machine they operated on.
Speaking of unlimited ammo - you see those unlimited gun powders those 10000 men carry - they can used that to make however big bombs they need to take out any tanks you got sitting there.

How are they going to take them out if a tank can fire a shell that'll kill them at about 1mile? Regular rifles suddenly have the power to go that far against moving targets? Can they even aim that well?

Think of it for a few minutes. The two tanks can rush, firing those anti-personel shots at a rate of about 6/m. That means they can fill the air with 13,200 tunsten projectiles per minute, or 792,000 per hour. You really think that it'd take that long for them to whipe everybody out? For those sitting further away? The longer-ranged fragmenting rounds, which have over a mile range hits with about 500 fragments.

How are they going to carry the bombs big enough to kill a tank? They'd have to use slower methods, meaning the tank can spot it and kill it easily, exploding it and probably killing a few hundred at the time. Not to mention that regular gun powder needs to be a massive volume to do much damage. Those IEDs have explosive equivs to hundreds of pounds of TNT and rarely kill a tank.

err, guns melt you know?

 

[Vonkhan]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Think of it for a few minutes. The two tanks can rush, firing those anti-personel shots at a rate of about 6/m. That means they can fill the air with 13,200 tunsten projectiles per minute, or 792,000 per hour. You really think that it'd take that long for them to whipe everybody out? For those sitting further away? The longer-ranged fragmenting rounds, which have over a mile range hits with about 500 fragments.

Those IEDs have explosive equivs to hundreds of pounds of TNT and rarely kill a tank

The barrel will overheat and melt

Also, IEDs are anti-personnel not anti-armor. EFD is anti-armor and relatively simple to make. I don;t have the time to dig it up right now, but you can search for the Israeli Abrams that was turned upside down by one.

"Think of it for a few minutes" ... o wait, you were never in the army, were you?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Vonkhan

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Think of it for a few minutes. The two tanks can rush, firing those anti-personel shots at a rate of about 6/m. That means they can fill the air with 13,200 tunsten projectiles per minute, or 792,000 per hour. You really think that it'd take that long for them to whipe everybody out? For those sitting further away? The longer-ranged fragmenting rounds, which have over a mile range hits with about 500 fragments.

Those IEDs have explosive equivs to hundreds of pounds of TNT and rarely kill a tank

The barrel will overheat and melt

Also, IEDs are anti-personnel not anti-armor. EFD is anti-armor and relatively simple to make. I don;t have the time to dig it up right now, but you can search for the Israeli Abrams that was turned upside down by one.

"Think of it for a few minutes" ... o wait, you were never in the army, were you?

After what type of sustained firing? 10min? That's about 8 million projectiles. 5min? 4m projectiles. Even if they shot for 1min, cooled down for 10 and alternated firing between the two tanks, within an hour they'd have 12 shots out with 1.5m projectiles.

How much is enough to take down 10k infantry? a million?

I maintain that they could easily do it with AP shots, cleanup with the machine guns.

Did the Israeli tank die? Was it high explosive rather than just improvised? Was it pre-placed instead of rushed?

 

[crystal]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Vonkhan

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Think of it for a few minutes. The two tanks can rush, firing those anti-personel shots at a rate of about 6/m. That means they can fill the air with 13,200 tunsten projectiles per minute, or 792,000 per hour. You really think that it'd take that long for them to whipe everybody out? For those sitting further away? The longer-ranged fragmenting rounds, which have over a mile range hits with about 500 fragments.

Those IEDs have explosive equivs to hundreds of pounds of TNT and rarely kill a tank

The barrel will overheat and melt

Also, IEDs are anti-personnel not anti-armor. EFD is anti-armor and relatively simple to make. I don;t have the time to dig it up right now, but you can search for the Israeli Abrams that was turned upside down by one.

"Think of it for a few minutes" ... o wait, you were never in the army, were you?

After what type of sustained firing? 10min? That's about 8 million projectiles. 5min? 4m projectiles. Even if they shot for 1min, cooled down for 10 and alternated firing between the two tanks, within an hour they'd have 12 shots out with 1.5m projectiles.

How much is enough to take down 10k infantry? a million?

I maintain that they could easily do it with AP shots, cleanup with the machine guns.

Did the Israeli tank die? Was it high explosive rather than just improvised? Was it pre-placed instead of rushed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams - Iraq 2003- how IED "rarely" kills the tank


On November 27, 2004 an Abrams tank was badly damaged from the detonation of an extremely powerful improvised explosive device (IED). The IED consisted of three M109A6 155 mm shells, with a total explosive weight of 34.5 kg, that detonated next to the tank. The tank's driver received lethal injuries from shrapnel. The other three crew members were able to escape.

On December 25, 2005 another M1A2 was disabled by an explosively formed penetrator IED. The IED penetrated through a road wheel, and hit the fuel tank, which left the tank burning near central Baghdad. One crew member, Spc. Sergio Gudino, died in the attack.

On June 4, 2006 two out of four soldiers died in Baghdad, Iraq, when an IED detonated near their M1A2.

-- at least 3 know cases. here we has only 2 tanks.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: crystal

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Vonkhan

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Think of it for a few minutes. The two tanks can rush, firing those anti-personel shots at a rate of about 6/m. That means they can fill the air with 13,200 tunsten projectiles per minute, or 792,000 per hour. You really think that it'd take that long for them to whipe everybody out? For those sitting further away? The longer-ranged fragmenting rounds, which have over a mile range hits with about 500 fragments.

Those IEDs have explosive equivs to hundreds of pounds of TNT and rarely kill a tank

The barrel will overheat and melt

Also, IEDs are anti-personnel not anti-armor. EFD is anti-armor and relatively simple to make. I don;t have the time to dig it up right now, but you can search for the Israeli Abrams that was turned upside down by one.

"Think of it for a few minutes" ... o wait, you were never in the army, were you?

After what type of sustained firing? 10min? That's about 8 million projectiles. 5min? 4m projectiles. Even if they shot for 1min, cooled down for 10 and alternated firing between the two tanks, within an hour they'd have 12 shots out with 1.5m projectiles.

How much is enough to take down 10k infantry? a million?

I maintain that they could easily do it with AP shots, cleanup with the machine guns.

Did the Israeli tank die? Was it high explosive rather than just improvised? Was it pre-placed instead of rushed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams - Iraq 2003- how IED "rarely" kills the tank


On November 27, 2004 an Abrams tank was badly damaged from the detonation of an extremely powerful improvised explosive device (IED). The IED consisted of three M109A6 155 mm shells, with a total explosive weight of 34.5 kg, that detonated next to the tank. The tank's driver received lethal injuries from shrapnel. The other three crew members were able to escape.

On December 25, 2005 another M1A2 was disabled by an explosively formed penetrator IED. The IED penetrated through a road wheel, and hit the fuel tank, which left the tank burning near central Baghdad. One crew member, Spc. Sergio Gudino, died in the attack.

On June 4, 2006 two out of four soldiers died in Baghdad, Iraq, when an IED detonated near their M1A2.

-- at least 3 know cases. here we has only 2 tanks.

Out of how many IED cases on tanks? Out of how many tanks deployed? Type of IED? You're also, again, talking about high-grade explosives with fragmentation. That's a little different than creating some type of bomb ala Lord of the Rings and running it at the area.

 

[randumb]

If the tanks get unlimited fuel, then the cavalry should get tireless American Quarter Horses. An M1 Abrams tops out at 30mph off road and an American Quarter Horse tops out at 50mph. Also, since the tanks get unlimited ammo, it's fair to say the cavalry get bazookas. Cavalry win.

This thread is ridiculous.

 

[crystal]

Originally posted by: randumb
If the tanks get unlimited fuel, then the cavalry should get tireless American Quarter Horses. An M1 Abrams tops out at 30mph off road and an American Quarter Horse tops out at 50mph. Also, since the tanks get unlimited ammo, it's fair to say the cavalry get bazookas. Cavalry win.

This thread is ridiculous.

I know. Some people refuse to see the logic. The weakest link for the tanks are the crews. With only 8 men, they can't maintain battle readiness 24/7. After 3 days at most, they are so tire they will be happy to surrender.

 

[nick1985]

Since the cavalry has absolutely no way of disabeling the tanks...the tanks win.


/thread.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: crystal

Originally posted by: randumb
If the tanks get unlimited fuel, then the cavalry should get tireless American Quarter Horses. An M1 Abrams tops out at 30mph off road and an American Quarter Horse tops out at 50mph. Also, since the tanks get unlimited ammo, it's fair to say the cavalry get bazookas. Cavalry win.

This thread is ridiculous.

I know. Some people refuse to see the logic. The weakest link for the tanks are the crews. With only 8 men, they can't maintain battle readiness 24/7. After 3 days at most, they are so tire they will be happy to surrender.

Tireless horses? That's amazing, anything running at 50mph isn't tireless. Why would the cavalry get bazookas? Nobody ever said anything about that.

I know that you refuse to see the logic. If the tankers can last 72 hours then 72 shots per hour (assuming 9 minutes cool down and 6 shots within the next 1 min = 36 shots x 2) = 6.2m tungsten projectiles for 10,000 soldiers, or 622 tungsten projectiles each. That doesn't count machine guns and just running them over.

Yeah, good luck with that.

It'd become a factor of range and time. The tank can outrange anything a cavalry man can handle. Cavalry doesn't use bazookas, at best they had rifles or pistols. Thus, if the cavalryman stays at range, which is more than 1.2mi, the tanker can sleep and do anything else they want.

I guess people just refuse to see the logic of being able to mow down thousands of people per hour if the proper stuff is used.

 

[randumb]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: crystal

Originally posted by: randumb
If the tanks get unlimited fuel, then the cavalry should get tireless American Quarter Horses. An M1 Abrams tops out at 30mph off road and an American Quarter Horse tops out at 50mph. Also, since the tanks get unlimited ammo, it's fair to say the cavalry get bazookas. Cavalry win.

This thread is ridiculous.

I know. Some people refuse to see the logic. The weakest link for the tanks are the crews. With only 8 men, they can't maintain battle readiness 24/7. After 3 days at most, they are so tire they will be happy to surrender.

Tireless horses? That's amazing, anything running at 50mph isn't tireless. Why would the cavalry get bazookas? Nobody ever said anything about that.

I know that you refuse to see the logic. If the tankers can last 72 hours then 72 shots per hour (assuming 9 minutes cool down and 6 shots within the next 1 min = 36 shots x 2) = 6.2m tungsten projectiles for 10,000 soldiers, or 622 tungsten projectiles each. That doesn't count machine guns and just running them over.

Yeah, good luck with that.

It'd become a factor of range and time. The tank can outrange anything a cavalry man can handle. Cavalry doesn't use bazookas, at best they had rifles or pistols. Thus, if the cavalryman stays at range, which is more than 1.2mi, the tanker can sleep and do anything else they want.

I guess people just refuse to see the logic of being able to mow down thousands of people per hour if the proper stuff is used.

It's no more ridiculous than the entirely imaginary and impossible axioms that people are spouting.

Can real tanks have unlimited fuel or ammo? No.
Can real tanks shoot nonstop without their guns overheating? No.
Can real tanks operate perfectly mechanically? No.

 

[crystal]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: crystal

Originally posted by: randumb
If the tanks get unlimited fuel, then the cavalry should get tireless American Quarter Horses. An M1 Abrams tops out at 30mph off road and an American Quarter Horse tops out at 50mph. Also, since the tanks get unlimited ammo, it's fair to say the cavalry get bazookas. Cavalry win.

This thread is ridiculous.

I know. Some people refuse to see the logic. The weakest link for the tanks are the crews. With only 8 men, they can't maintain battle readiness 24/7. After 3 days at most, they are so tire they will be happy to surrender.

Tireless horses? That's amazing, anything running at 50mph isn't tireless. Why would the cavalry get bazookas? Nobody ever said anything about that.

I know that you refuse to see the logic. If the tankers can last 72 hours then 72 shots per hour (assuming 9 minutes cool down and 6 shots within the next 1 min = 36 shots x 2) = 6.2m tungsten projectiles for 10,000 soldiers, or 622 tungsten projectiles each. That doesn't count machine guns and just running them over.

Yeah, good luck with that.

It'd become a factor of range and time. The tank can outrange anything a cavalry man can handle. Cavalry doesn't use bazookas, at best they had rifles or pistols. Thus, if the cavalryman stays at range, which is more than 1.2mi, the tanker can sleep and do anything else they want.

I guess people just refuse to see the logic of being able to mow down thousands of people per hour if the proper stuff is used.

You seem to think there are anything for you to shot during those 72 hrs. Since there are 10000 on this side - they can make you think they will over run anytime but they just play cat and mouse with you. They can come at you in multi direction - with 40 mph horses they can reach you just over a min. As the tank crews you know this, can you really fall asleep under that situation? And really, do you want to chase them? They might lead you some traps that other 9000 digs up & prepare for your tank.

 

[MikeSci457DC]

what about a transformer vs. all the riders of Rohan...?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: crystal

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: crystal

Originally posted by: randumb
If the tanks get unlimited fuel, then the cavalry should get tireless American Quarter Horses. An M1 Abrams tops out at 30mph off road and an American Quarter Horse tops out at 50mph. Also, since the tanks get unlimited ammo, it's fair to say the cavalry get bazookas. Cavalry win.

This thread is ridiculous.

I know. Some people refuse to see the logic. The weakest link for the tanks are the crews. With only 8 men, they can't maintain battle readiness 24/7. After 3 days at most, they are so tire they will be happy to surrender.

Tireless horses? That's amazing, anything running at 50mph isn't tireless. Why would the cavalry get bazookas? Nobody ever said anything about that.

I know that you refuse to see the logic. If the tankers can last 72 hours then 72 shots per hour (assuming 9 minutes cool down and 6 shots within the next 1 min = 36 shots x 2) = 6.2m tungsten projectiles for 10,000 soldiers, or 622 tungsten projectiles each. That doesn't count machine guns and just running them over.

Yeah, good luck with that.

It'd become a factor of range and time. The tank can outrange anything a cavalry man can handle. Cavalry doesn't use bazookas, at best they had rifles or pistols. Thus, if the cavalryman stays at range, which is more than 1.2mi, the tanker can sleep and do anything else they want.

I guess people just refuse to see the logic of being able to mow down thousands of people per hour if the proper stuff is used.

You seem to think there are anything for you to shot during those 72 hrs. Since there are 10000 on this side - they can make you think they will over run anytime but they just play cat and mouse with you. They can come at you in multi direction - with 40 mph horses they can reach you just over a min. As the tank crews you know this, can you really fall asleep under that situation? And really, do you want to chase them? They might lead you some traps that other 9000 digs up & prepare for your tank.

That's what shift sleeping can do. Any tank trap has to be more than a mile out. That means that the theoretical range for the tank is 2.2mi or so.

 

[ItsOnlyMe]

Are they are specifically Chinese cavalry?
If so the only current combat Chinese cavalry are the 601, 602 and 603 Air Cavalry Brigades, these have attack helicopters in their armory and no horses!
If they are cavalry from some other nation then the British Royal Dragoon Guards, for example, are a cavalry regiment are they are armed with Challenger Mk2 battle tanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2

Either way the cavalry wins.

If we are talking about mounted horseman with rifles, such as those used in WW1 then they still win.

All they need to do is scatter around the tanks at random distances, dismount and dig themselves into foxholes/trenches.
You now have 10,000 entrenched infantry pretty much impervious to the tanks guns, now digging a labyrinth of trenches, tank trap pits and hidey-holes.
The tankers wouldn?t know exactly where all the trenches and holes were or how large they were, there would be hundreds of them, so they couldn?t use their speed for fear of falling into one.
All the tanks can do now is retreat slowly (they lose) or sit and wait for the trenches to surround them, some of them too large to cross. They are now trapped, the crew can?t leave the tanks as there would be up to 10,000 rifles pointing at them, within a few days they would have to surrender or die of starvation/dehydration or be overrun by soldiers emerging from trenches too close for the tanks to depress their guns sufficiently to fire at them.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
The chinese would have to be pretty determined...since a shit ton of them are going to die. If they had a plan and accepted death they could probably swarm the tank and disable it.

Chinese are used to large scale battles. More "Chinese" died in "Chinese" hand than any other foreign invader's hand. Quoting the word Chinese because it is a very fuzzy definition.

examples of large scale battle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Muye

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Changping

 

[BeauJangles]

Given 'unlimited' tank wins hands down.

Here's how. Tank engages at long-range. Once calvarly get close (<.5 mile), tank launches smoke, obscuring itself and the battlefield. Tank uses infrared to destroy thousands more. With thermal imaging, the calvary can't see anything. Even if a few find the tank, it would be hard to coordinate an attack on its weakest parts. Eventually, the tank's treads might be isabled by sheer luck. Tank continues to fire. Eventually tank's guns are jammed, fuel line ruptured, whatever.

 

[Shadowknight]

Dunno. But if you had these two guys: http://www.badassoftheweek.com/wittman.html http://www.badassoftheweek.com/greengold.html then they could probably take out 10,000 calvaryman, some Predators, and a nest of Aliens to boot.

Gratuitous link to chinese female pirate (same site) http://www.badassoftheweek.com/chingshih.html

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Calvarymen of course. Just make a circle around the tanks, and charge in. If your horse is stuck, go on foot and run to the tanks.

Tanks can move you know.

 

[Jimmah]

I think its safe to assume the Chinese would have anti-tank weapon, grenades, smoke grenades, explosives, shovels (ditch), etc...

This is a foolish 'versus' thread, and even more foolish would be to believe the tank ever stood a chance. Can't fire the guns fast enough to defeat a charging army, nor would smoke be enough to obscure it effectively from 10k peeps. Even if in each squad of 10 guys had 1 grenade launcher, and 1 in 50 have an anti-tank weapon, no smoke could obscure it enough in time to be missed 100 freakin' time from rockets, or the likelihood 250 grenades wouldn't land in a track and royally screw it over.

Tank loses in every scenario I can imagine.

 

[NuroMancer]

Who resurected this thread.

I say we put them up against a Abrams tank.

 

[nonameo]

Originally posted by: LS20

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
IDDQD.

IDISPISPOPD

OMG!!!

QFMFT!!!

 

[TehMac]

Tanks win. .50 Cal machine guns anyone? Uh no.

 

[Pepsei]

i'm siding with the hor semen, because the tank driver said so.

 

[Kev]

What are the cavalrymen armed with? Everything hinges on this.

 

[zach0624]

tanks, an abrams can sprint at like 60mph which I am pretty sure is faster than a horse. Also bodies are in the tanks favor, it can easily plow right over them while the horse would lose some to broken legs. Also with unlimited ammo the tanks can engage from over a mile away and inflict heavy damage.

Discovery and future weapons ftw