(Addendum: I do appreciate that repeated weapons impacts will degrade any type of armor over time.)
(Addendum: I do appreciate that repeated weapons impacts will degrade any type of armor over time.)
It started out as someone on AskReddit asking how modern military would fare against ancient Roman military. The full story is on the right side of that sub-reddit under the section FAQ as a PDF, or here's the first section: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/k067x/could_i_de...
A lot of people are still (after 9 years) waiting for the studio who acquired the rights to actually make a movie or a series based on the story (which Prufrock451 sold, good for him/her!). I for one hope Netflix/HBO/Amazon picks it up and makes a series out of it someday.
You might need to make a bigger one for a modern tank than a WWII tank, but the tools to make big holes have been around for a while.
Trenches have flexible dimensions.
You show me an MBT, and I'll design a ditch it can't cross.
(Which is the entire point of combat engineers. But as you point out, given the speed of modern MBTs, it's easier to flank static anti-tank defenses like ditches)
The role of modern combat engineers is to get MBTs (and infantry) through obstacles.
A ditch isn't very effective if the far side is dynamited into a slope.
I guess you'd have to dig quite a deep trench for modern tanks.
In direct combat, nothing short of a direct artillery hit (unlikely) could kill it or render it unable to defend itself in the short term. Let's say it got ambushed by 3 AT teams within 50 meters - the AT RPGs / recoil-less rifles of the time could do nothing to the armor, even rear.
In reality, any super-weapon, and its supply chain would be hit with massed artillery, bombing runs, and special forces.
It also has vulnerable optics and tracks as was mentioned earlier.
Furthermore, even if it took out 40 tanks (each round is a kill), it would not be significant in a major WWII engagement.
Btw, this topic has been discussed ad-nauseum elsewhere.
If the Germans had some well-fortified position only to see a T-72B3 fitted with explosive reactive armor and an active protection system roll in? Yes, in that case, the Germans are toast. In practical terms they would not be able to damage the tank.
It isn't invincible, though. The tracks on any tank are vulnerable and the engine is (relatively) fragile. A lucky HEAT shot or a well-placed anti-tank mine could disable it, though I don't they could score an outright kill.
And the Shermans were notoriously undergunned. The Germans had 88mm guns on tanks since 1942 with the Tiger I, and had anti-tank guns up to 126mm (which was even mounted on the Jagdtiger tank destroyers ( of course as everything late war German, in pitiful numbers)).
The Soviet KV-2 had a 152mm howitzer in 1939, and anti-tank guns up to 100mm. The IS-2 had a 122mm gun, and was used since 1944.
Today's main battle tanks are closer to heavy WW2 tanks ( in terms of size, armament, protection, etc.), so compare apples with apples, shall we :p
Today's 120mm rounds are kinetic-penetrator sabot rounds* (link below if someone really wants the details and naming conventions). The point is that this round is way longer than WWII tank rounds and functions completely differently. None of the tanks you listed would penetrate a modern tank from the front (100%), I would guess they are unlikely to penetrate from any aspect, but I am not ready to provide data proving that. Note that even T-72s are currently being updated specifically to be able to use LONGER rounds, and every developed country has chosen to BYPASS 150+mm cannons in favor of using longer 12x rounds.
We can also get fancy and talk about active protection systems (APS), which would defend against slow WWII rounds as well as they protect against RPGs since the 90s. Though, no one but Israel has really fielded APS in serious numbers since the USSR pioneered the concept.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour-piercing_fin-stabilized...