The entire British Imperial Army circa 1700 VS. 4 M1 Abrams

[Blackadder51]

1320545994970.png

The tanks are fully manned.

Who will win!

[Aenir_bEPU]

I imagine the British would, by virtue of overwhelming numbers.

[XxGhOsTxReCoNxX]

I don't know.

[Jake55778]

In a one off direct engagement, probably the tanks.

In an actual war the British need only retreat out of range and take control of all nearby settlements. Eventually the tanks will run out of fuel/ammo/food/water and be forced to surrender. The British army then reverse engineers the M1 Abrams and goes on to conquer the world (even more so than before).

[Byroe]

I don't think the tanks would have enough supplies to take out an entire army. The British army would probably win.

[Milo_Windby]

Who needs supplies? Run them over and shot any that try to climb on top... not to mention the British troops would be confused by these metal beasts... not to say they are primitive... but nothing to the like would have been seen by them.
If I was in one of their shoes I would be running the hell away... not trying to fight something like a tank head on.

[Jake55778]

Who needs supplies?

An army marches on it's stomach. Military technology may have come a long way in 300 years, but soldiers still need to eat.
You bring up a good point about the tanks being intimidating to the British soldiers. In a direct attack many would probably choose to mutiny or desert after seeing their effectiveness. All the more reason for an indirect approach.

Run them over and shot any that try to climb on top

They aren't going to get close enough to do either of those things. They'd be under fire from the main guns before they were close enough to even see the things, and any attempt to actually charge them would be mown down by machinegun fire. Even if they got in range I doubt the British cannons would be very effective, and you can pretty much rule out anything smaller.

[SneakyPie]

Well if the British Army still does those stupid line tactics it would be a close call.

If we're only talking one battle and not an entire war, I would side with the Abrams. For an entire war, the British.

[random980]

Well knowing how smart the British army has been over generations, i would say the tanks would win. Then again it would really come down to who are in the tanks (Other British? French? Chinese? Aussies? Aliens? Narwhals?) and their tactics.

[Lord_Mountbatten]

Well knowing how smart the British army has been over generations, i would say the tanks would win.

Explain.

[random980]

Well knowing how smart the British army has been over generations, i would say the tanks would win.

Explain.

Well in WW1, The English army F'ed up the landing of the ANZAC's in Gallipoli, well they f'ed up Gallipoli in general. There was a commander known for killing off more of his own men in battle then the enemy. For a while they thought the best way to get the upper hand on a machine gun nest was to send waves after waves of troops out of the trenches to just run at it in hopes one of them was brave and fast enough to get close to the nest and disable it. The invention of the tank was the solution to defeating machine guns, and the it was the Germans who first made them. (granted there 1st test run was shocking, killing most people inside).
Also in the 1812 war, why on earth did England even provoke the US into war? Especially when England were already battling it out with France. Most of your generals have been upper class twits, through out the ages
Anyway, that's mainly why i think the British army haven't been the brightest bunch over the years.
(Btw im not really being serious, so no flaming )

[697134002]

So said the Australian unto Admiral of the Fleet Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas George Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma.

[Lord_Mountbatten]

Well in WW1, The English army F'ed up the landing of the ANZAC's in Gallipoli, well they f'ed up Gallipoli in general.

Generations, he says.

There was a commander known for killing off more of his own men in battle then the enemy.

I'm assuming Douglas Haig is who you mean here. It was probably about even. Whilst a lot of Brits died, a lot of Germans did too.

For a while they thought the best way to get the upper hand on a machine gun nest was to send waves after waves of troops out of the trenches to just run at it in hopes one of them was brave and fast enough to get close to the nest and disable it.

Any alternatives? Biological and conventional weapons were all the while being invented and adapted in an effort to break the stalemate. Whilst there was certainly a degree of foolhardiness in tactics, it was not just as simple as "running at the machine guns will one day work and we'll stick to this plan and ignore everything else."

The invention of the tank was the solution to defeating machine guns, and the it was the Germans who first made them. (granted there 1st test run was shocking, killing most people inside).

Er, are you saying that the Germans invented the tank? Because they didn't.

Also in the 1812 war, why on earth did England even provoke the US into war? Especially when England were already battling it out with France.

Because England was battling it out with France, and the US happened to be trading with them. England imposed trade restrictions in order to prevent the French from receiving supplies. Also grumpiness over the loss of the War of Independence too, which I'll admit is less clever.

Most of your generals have been upper class twits, through out the ages

I do enjoy ignoring those generals who were upper class and yet were good. For every Haig or Gordon, there's an Alexander, Montgomery, Cornwallis, Nelson, Wellington, Wavell, Ismay, Ironside, Gort, or even a Mountbatten.

(Btw im not really being serious, so no flaming )

Tell me, is it true that Australian generals never command battles whilst sober? Are there any Australian generals to speak of?

[Jakeman214]

Certainly a Lord of The United Kingdom should know of some the famous exploits of the Commonwealth Nations, and in particular the RENOWNED ANZAC'S!!!

There are many famous Australian Generals, Lord Mountbatten. Not so many New Zealander General's, they never could deploy as many men and usually got lumped in with us Aussie's. It is also untrue that they drink whilst commanding, the beer is distributed after they've soundly beaten their adversaries.

A few of our most Famous Generals:
Lieutenant General Henry George Chauvel (Commander, Desert Mounted Corps, WWI)
Brigadier General William Grant (Led the Charge of The Light Horse Brigades at the Battle of Bersheeba, WWI. This was the Last Successful Cavalry Charge, EVER and it was done by MOUNTED INFANTRY WITH BAYONETS.)
General Sir John Monash (Commander, Australian Corps, WWI and pioneer of Combined-Arms assaults)
Lieutenant General Leslie Morshead (Commander of the Rats of Tobruk, WWII. Coincedently, Tobruk was lost after the Australians were relieved by British. Highly Praised by Rommel, the Desert Fox himself.)
Field Marshall Sir Thomas Blamey (LT GEN, I Corps commander during the Greece Campaign, WWII)

Thats the most I can think of off the top of my head. Let me dig out my Australian Military History books and then we'll get going. And I will never forgive the British High Command for their Strategic blunders and misuse of Commonwealth and British forces during the First World War. Fromelles, Pashendale, Ypres, Gallipoli, Pozieres, the Battles of Bullecourt, Messines and countless others on the Western Front.

[Lord_Mountbatten]

Nope, we're mean to the commonwealth and only focus on the flashpoints of the Empire and post-Empire nations.

I also haven't heard of any of these famous Australian generals. That may be ignorance on my part if others have heard of them.

[Jakeman214]

In the First World War, from a population of fewer than five million, 416,809 men enlisted, of which over 60,000 were killed and 156,000 wounded, gassed, or taken prisoner.

Almost a million Australian's joined up in the Second World War, and over 30,000 Australian servicemen were taken prisoner in the Second World War and 39,000 gave their lives. Two-thirds of those taken prisoner were captured by the Japanese during their advance through south-east Asia in the first weeks of 1942. Most of those taken prisoner by the Japanese were taken when the British General surrendered the Garrison at Singapore, without marching out to fight and prevent his men from being encircled and captured.

Ignore that you silly British k-nih-git. (Monty Python reference, not intended as a grave insult.)

[Lord_Mountbatten]

Ignore that you silly British k-nih-git. (Monty Python reference, not intended as a grave insult.)

I shall.

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

[Jakeman214]

Hmm, I seem to have de-railed this thread quite nicely now, haven't I? I shall put away my Australian Military History for now, and address the OP.

I believe that the M1 Abrams would be able to hold the line for a single battle. However, the British would then cordon off the area around the tanks, and starve the crews to surrender and/or death. Abrams tanks only carry so much fuel, and after a couple hundred miles they run out and stop. They also carry 40 odd rounds of HEAT ammunition, High Explosive Anti Tank, about 1200 rounds of 50.cal machinegun ammo for the coaxial MG and another 600-800 for the 50.cal on the top hatch.

If the british were to use attrition warfare, the Abrams would run out of ammuntion eventually, and who's to say the brits wouldn't roll out the 20 pounder cannon? Enough shots will hit something useful eventually, or even jam a track or send shrapnel into the air intakes.

[random980]

yeah... what jakeman said...