Could a single Leopard 2 tank turn the tide of battle at Verdun,

I doubt one could turn the tide, considering that even if it did advance past the front line fortifications, it wouldn't get bogged down by the absolute shit conditions an swarmed enemy soldiers, not to mention the consistent artillery and gas being lobbed at it.

>>35041771
>Blast some HE howitzers at it
>Tracks is gone

Enjoy your bunker Hans.

>>35041771
No. One tank would've been a fart in the hurricane that was Verdun. It'd have been destroyed by artillery fire by random chance most likely, given the volume of fire.

These question are without fail retarded.

>>35041861
Or just gotten stuck in some mudhole

>>35041771
>blow up supplies
>lolnotank

>>35041771
No. It would have gotten bogged down and obliterated by artillery.

>>35041888
>>35041870
Yeah because that's what happens to current gen MBTs right no-- oh wait

File: 14651019033171.jpg (18KB, 259x240px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 259x240px

>>35041901
>years of constant artillery fire
>trench networks miles deep
>so man's land with artillery zero'd in
>rolling barrages
>mud so deep and thick men drown in it
Yeah, that sounds like a battlefield any MBT has fought in. Verdun wasn't some first moth offensive in WWI. It was deep in the war and the lines we're established. No way would a single tank make it

>>35041943
>drowning in mud
No shit my two biggest fears are being buried alive and drowning. This is just awful.

>>35041771

I think i could make impact but not using the gun,use advancedoptics and thermal sights to direct fire and detect enemy formations and snipers.

could make a significant impact.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (161KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1280x720px

>>35041901
>Yeah because that's what happens to current gen MBTs right no-- oh wait

Ring ring you dumb nigger, you see this picture? Vedun is this x1000. Tanks can get stuck in the mud and do all the fucking time. Traversing a battlefield that is nothing but mud-Moon will slow if not halt a tank advance very easily.

It has like 45 shells and 3000 machine gun rounds loaded. Maybe it would assist opening a small hole on the enemy defences but I guess that wouldn't be enough to turn the tide in war

It would be a shitload more effective at the start of the war

>>35043048
a leopard 2 would do better than the abrams though

>>35043268
Are you just retarded or do you legitimately not understand how the battlefield terrain of Verdun was?

>>35043483
>modern day tanks can't defeat mud
>british mark 1 tanks could
WE NEED TO GO BACK

>>35041771
Unless the weapon in question is a high-yield nuclear device, the answer of "Could a single X turn the tide of..." is always NO.

>>35043268

The inch or two in ground clearance and suspension travel would allow it to get few meters further before getting stuck into mud.

>>35044415
They couldn't either, and in fact more broke down than were destroyed by the enemy.

Can you test a fetus for autism? I know you can test for Down's syndrome, but I'd like to know if there's any way to purge autists before birth.

>>35046976
if you could, then you wouldn't be here either

>>35045354
I think it depends on the time period, man. If you had a competent machine gun crew with a ton of ammo and barrel changes and lube, etc, I think even a single machine gun could sway a lot of battles that took place before the advent of guns and also up through say the Civil War.

Modern bullets would shred almost all historical armor and shields. In Civil War times a single soldier would fire like 4 shots a minute if he was an ace soldier. Any modern machine gun can basically do sustained operations at 200rpm, so it's doing the work of 50 men.

Would one machine gun crew be able to kill every enemy? Usually no, but it totally could force a retreat.

Then again, if you had a single Leopard 2 at say, the Battle of Thermopolae, it could have just run the spartans over.

So don't speak in absolutes.

>>35045354
A B-1 with infinite supplies could easily win 99% of pre-WW2 battles and most WW2 battles.

Most effective way using a Leopard 2 would been for counter attacks.

LOL, just LOL, if you send the tank directly into combat

The sensor suite and comms (assuming the crew were allowed to lend their handheld radios to non-future folk) would be the most valuable part.

Just drive around locating enemy artillery and calling it in to your own guys artillery

>no reverse engineering
The only thing useful from the Leo 2 is the MG3s it has mounted. The Germans were desperate for a lightweight portable machine gun that could be shat out in preposterous numbers, and the MG3, weighing less than half the weight of the MG08 would be valuable to reverse engineer. The main problem would be the feedblock which is oriented towards the push through metallic belts compared to the imperial German supply of cloth belts. A hypothetical MG 16 could come out by marrying the feed system of the MG08 with the MG3's roller locked air cooled replacable barrel operation.

For the developers of the A7V, the Leo is a godsend pattern to copy if only for the running gear and steering.

>>35047902
But OP say:
>Assume no reverse engineering of any techs.

>>35047018
A literal
>no u
response

>>35047932
no u