I know a lone modern fighter jet would make a huge difference but have always wondered about a tank

  • freagle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    7 hours ago

    You do realize that the continuous supply of ammo, fuel, and spare parts would have so much more of an effect than literally any other thing you could do, right?

    • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      The barrels in those tanks are rated for 1500 shots. That’s all you’ll get out of the tank. Sure, you can call the barrel a spare part and assume another one is at the ready, but at that point I’ll start asking why the Allies can’t just start assembling other Abrams from the infinite spare parts pile.

    • KC_Royalz@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Just for the tank. Nothing else. Just wondering how it would perform and if it could change the outcome for any country

      • pwnicholson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 hours ago

        That would still be a huge advantage over any other machine of war in the history of warfare, even today.

        You could say “how much difference would a single modern tank with unlimited ammo, fuel, and share parts make in Afghanistan in 2010” and the answer would be at least “very significant”

        • safesyrup@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 hours ago

          I would partly disagree because no matter how many spare parts you have, a blown up tank is a blown up tank. I thike the question is are there tanks in WW2 that can outmatch and destroy modern tanks.